Skip to main content

Full text of "Some historical considerations relating to the declaration on kneeling appended to the Communion Office of the English Book of Common Prayer : a letter addressed privately in 1858 to the Right Rev. Charles H. Terrot, D.D., Bishop of Edinburgh and then Primus ; to which is added a postscript of further authorities and arguments including an examination of statements in a work & supplement on the Eucharist by the Very Rev. W. Goode, D.D., Dean of Ripon"

See other formats 


SOME 

HISTORICAL  CONSIDERATIONS 


RELATING   TO   THE 


DECLARATION  ON  KNEELING, 


APPENDED   TO    THE 


dMto  nf  ttj?  ftiglufy  9Wt  rf  Cnmrnnu 


A    LETTER, 

ADDRESSED  PRIVATELY  IN  1858,  TO 
THE    RIGHT    REV.    CHARLES    H.    TERROT,    D.D., 

BISHOP   OF   EDINBURGH   AND  THEN   PRIMUS. 
TO    WHICH    IS    ADDED, 


INCLUDING   AN 


EXAMINATION  OF  STATEMENTSlN  A  WORK  &  SUPPLEMENT  ON  THE  EUCHARIST, 

BY  THE  VERY  REV.  W.  GOODE,   D.D.,   DEAN  OF  RIPON. 


KEY.  THOMAS  WALTEE  PEEEY, 

ASSISTANT  CURATE  OF  S.  MICHAEL  AND  ALL  ANGELS,   BRIGHTON. 


LONDON: 

JOSEPH    MASTERS,     ALDERSGATE    STREET, 
AND  NEW  BOND  STREET. 

OXFORD  :  J.  H.  &  J.  PARKER;     CAMBRIDGE:  DEIGHTON,  BELL,  &  Co.; 
EDINBURGH:  GRANT  &  SON. 

MDCCCLXIII. 


LONDON : 

PRINTED    BY   W.    J.    PF.KRY, 
WARWICK    LANE,    CITY. 


ADVERTISEMENT. 


THE  origin  of  the  following  LETTER  and  of  the  Postscript  whereby 
it  has  expanded  into  this  VOLUME  is  sufficiently  stated,  at  pp.  1,  2,  and 
76,  to  render  needless  any  further  explanation  here,  as  to  the  reason  for 
preparing  and  now  publishing  these  "  Historical  Considerations,"  be- 
yond saying — that  the  writer  was  encouraged,  in  pursuing  the  investi- 
gation and  in  deciding  to  make  public  its  results,  by  the  reliable  opinions 
of  some  who  were  cognizant  of  the  Pamphlet  when,  five  years  ago,  it 
was  only  privately  circulated. 

But  it  may  be  desirable  to  mention,  with  reference  to  the  main  line 
of  argument  therein  adopted, — touching  the  belief  of  the  leading 
English  Reformers,  on  the  Eucharistic  Presence,  having  been  unchanged 
subsequent  to  1549 — That,  though  perhaps  somewhat  novel,  it  is  very 
important  to  be  established,  provided  an  appeal  to  Evidence  strictly 
warrants  such  a  conclusion.  That  there  is  prima  facie  ground  for  con- 
tending the  point,  may  be  most  reasonably  inferred  from  the  consider- 
ation of  a  Doctrinal  identity  really  subsisting,  and  here  shewn,  between 
the  First  and  the  Second  Liturgies  of  K.  Edward  VI.,  notwithstanding 
that  the  case  is  commonly  believed  to  be,  and  apparently  is,  otherwise: 
it  strengthened  the  writer's  convictions  on  this  point  to  find  that  Mr. 
Freeman's  independent  examination  of  these  two  Eucharistic  Services, 
( Principles  of  Divine  Service.  Vol.  i.)  led  him  to  a  similar  opinion 
concerning  them. 

Further,  it  is  of  very  material  consequence  to  point  out,  that — in 
order  to  determine  accurately  the  precise  opinions,  regarding  Eucharistic 
Presence,  held  by  those  who  are  cited  as  witnesses  in  these  pages — it  is 
essential  to  bear  in  mind  constantly  the  exact  sense  in  which  the 
words  are  used  which  are  printed  throughout  in  a  prominent  Egyptian 
type. 

A  few  additions  have  been  made  to  the  original  Letter,  these  are 
distinguished  by  being  inserted  within  square  brackets. 


IV  ADVERTISEMENT. 

Some  inconvenience  may  probably  attend  the,  unavoidable,  absence 
of  a  systematic  arrangement  of  the  Postscript  which  forms  the  bulk 
of  the  Volume ;  but  this  is,  perhaps,  in  part  remedied  by  a  copious 
Table  of  Contents. 

It  is  only  respectful  to  the  Dean  of  Eipon,  some  of  whose  state- 
ments and  arguments  are  herein  contested,  to  explain  that — a  portion 
•of  the  remarks  having  been  printed  before  he  was  elevated  to  his 
present  Dignity,  it  was  thought  he  would  be  best  identified  by  con- 
tinuing to  call  him  "  Mr.  Goode." 

The  Reader  will  see  that  the  Letter  when  first  issued  was  signed 
"  Presbyter  Anglicanus " ;  this  anonymous  subscription  was  adopted 
no  less  from  the  writer's  own  wish,  than  in  deference  to  the  counsel 
of  others.  In  subsequently  determining  to  own  its  Authorship  he 
was  influenced,  chiefly,  by  the  knowledge  that  the  Letter  had  been 
attributed  to  one  whom  it  would  be  a  serious  injustice  to  hold  re- 
sponsible for  any  errors  of  fact  or 'argument  it  may  contain. 

The  Author's  thanks  are  especially  due,  and  are  hereby  tendered,  to 
the  Hon.  G.  F.  Boyle,  of  Cumbrae,  for  much  pains  most  kindly 
bestowed  in  attentively  perusing  and  obligingly  criticizing,  at  different 
stages  of  its  progress,  the  Volume  which  is  now  presented  to  the 
candid  judgment  of  those  who  may  be  induced  to  give  it  a  patient 
perusal. 

T.  W.  P. 

Feast  of  the  Ascension,  1863. 


ADDENDA  AND  CORRIGENDA. 

Page  2,  line  7,  for  "from  those  usually  held"  read  "from  those  opinions  usually 

held." 

„  35,  Note,  line  10,  for  "consecrated"  read  " unconsecrated." 
„  67,  line  3  from  bottom,  for  "  organicas  "  read  "  organical." 
„  71,  line  20,  for  "vol"  read  "fol." 

„     120,  line  11,  for  "  if  by  is  meant "  read  "  if  by  this  is  meant." 
„     128,  Note,  line  4,  for  "  prace  "  read  "  peace  "  ;  and,  line  6,  for  "  Corp  "  read 

"  Conf." 

„     142,  line  4,  for  «  given  "  read  "  give." 
„     145,  line  6,  for  "  kind "  read  "  principle." 
,,    201,  line  8  from  bottom,  insert  "  to"  after  "  papist." 

„    218,  Note,  after  "Lambeth  Library"  add  "  nor  yet  at  C.  C.  CoUege,  Cam- 
bridge." 
„    262,  Note,  line  3,  for  "  Edw.  had"  read  "  Edw.  vi.  had" ;  and  for  "  235 " 

read  "211." 

„    272,  Note,  line  10  from  bottom,  for  "  Line  "  read  "  Line." 
„    289,  lines  3  and  7  from  bottom,  for  "  Bishop  "  read  "  Doctor." 
„    309,  Note,  line  6  for  "  without  the  Declaration  "  read  "  without  Adoration." 
„    358,  line  16,  for  "  Declara  "  read  "  Declaration." 
„    391,  Note,  line  2,  for  "  a  sunguinis  "  read  "  ac  sanguinis." 


CONTENTS. 


. 

Occasion  of  The  Letter ;   viz.  contemplated  Synod  in  reference  to  the 

Bp.  of  Breehin's  Charge         .  .  .  .  .1 

Questions  likely  to  be  discussed,  probably  affected  by  the  Declaration 

on  Kneeling  in  English  P.  Book    ....  2 
Form  of  Declaration  in  1552  and  1662  compared     .                .                .3 

History  shews  that  both  Forms  had  the  same  object        .                .  4 
Popular  view  of  the  Real  Presence  indicated  in  the  Declaration,  shewn 
from  ;— 

Bp.  Shaxton's  recantation  Articles,  1546                    .                 .  5 

Stat.  1  Edw.  VI.  c.  i.  A.D.  1547                    '•  +    '            .  6 

Conversation  beween  Abp.  Cranmer  and  Bp.  Bonner  1549        .  ib. 
Prayer  Book  of  1549  designed  to  secure  Ancient  Doctrine,  proved  by :  — 

Letter  from  Duke  of  Somerset  to  Cardinal  Pole,  June  4,  1549  7 
A  CARNAL  Presence  the  main  dread  of  the  Reforming  party,  exemplified 
in  :  — 

Peter  Martyr's  Disputation  at  Oxford,  June  1549              .  9-12 

Three  Disputations  at  Cambridge,  June  1549            ^               .  13-18 

Bp.  Ridley's  " Determinations "  on  the  Disputations        ...  18 

Abp.  Cranmer's  "  Answer  to  Gardiner "        .             .                 .  19-26 

Bp.  Gardiner's  opinion  of  the  P.  Book  of  1549                 '  .  26 

Articles  exhibited  by  Gardiner,  Jan.  21,  1550-1        .'                ^  27 
Deposition  of  John  "White,  Warden  of  "Winchester,  Feb.  3, 

1550-1             ,:             -  .                .                .                .  ib. 
Dr.  Redman's  Statements  to  Wilkes,  Nowel,  and  Young,  Nov. 

1551         .                 .                 .               ',   *            .                 .  28-30 

Bp.  Hooper's  Visitation  Book,  1551-2                .                .  30 

Articles  ministered  to  W.  Phelps  by  Bp,  Hooper,  Ap.  1551      .  .      ib. 

Profession  of  John  "Wynter  in  Gloucester  Cathedral,  Nov.  1551  31 

Art.  xxix.  of  1552-3  represented  the  then  authoritative  belief  of  the 

Church  of  England  as  to  a  Carnal  Presence                  '.            "  .  32 
Second  Bk.  of  Edw.  vi.  not  designed  to  teach  a  lower  Eucharistic  Doc- 
trine than  the  First  Book,  proved  by  : — 

Act  of  Uniformity  5  and  6  Edw.  VI.  1552                .                .  33 

Testimony  of  Bp.  Latimer,  1554         ...  34 
Contemporary  belief  and  probable   acceptance  by  the  Pope 

when  re-produced  in  Elizabeth's  Book   .  .  .35 

The  Declaration  on  Kneeling  first  appeared  in  P.  Book  of  1552       .  ib. 

Apparent  cause  of  it,  viz.  the  new  Rub.  ordering  Kneeling  at  reception  36 


Vlll  CONTENTS. 

Probability  tbat  some  thought  the  Rubric  favoured  Transubstantiation, 
inferred  from :  — 

Bucer's  complaint  of  the  1st  Book      ...  37 

Articles  against  Bishop  Ferrar,  Jan.  1553-4              .                .  ib. 
Continued  fear  of  a  revival  of  the  Doctrine  of  a  Carnal  Presence  and 
therewith  of  Transubstantiation,  shewn  in  :  - 

Disputation  in  Convocation  House,  Oct.  1553    .                .  38 

Conference  between  Bp.  Ridley  and  Secretary  Bourn,  1553     .  39 
Disputation  at  Oxford  between  Lalimer  and  others,  Ap.  18, 

1554                  .....  39-41 

Examination  of  John  Bradford,  Jan.  29,  1554-5       .                 .  41 

Second  Examination  of  John  Rogers,  Jan.  29,  1554-5       ..  42 

Conferences  between  Ridley  and  Larimer                  .                .  ib. 

Ridley's  "  Brief  Declaration  of  the  Lord's  Supper,"  1555  43-5 

Cranmer's  Disputation  at  Oxford,  Ap.  16,  1555         .                .  45-52 

Disputation  at  Oxford,  Dr.  Smith  and  others  v  Bp.  Ridley,  1555  52-61 
Summary  of  preceding   Writings,    Disputations,   Conversations,    and 

Documents      .                .                .                .                .                .  61 

Comparison  of  Terms  allowed  and  disallowed  therein               .                .  62 

These  Considerations  the  safest  guide  to  the  meaning  of  the  Declaration  63 
Absence  of  the  Declaration  from  the  P.  Book  of  Elizabeth — probable 

cause  of  it       .                .                .               .                .                .  ib. 

Previous  question  (to  Bp.  Guest)  "  Whether  the  Sacrament  were  to  be 

received  standing  or  Kneeling  ?"  .  .  .  .64 

The  Puritans  (now  so-called)  proposed  standing  or  prostration  instead  of 

kneeling           ......  65 

Parker  and  Grindal  wished  to  secure  Reverence — ordered  Wafer  Bread  ib. 

Grindal's  view  of  the  Real  as  distinct  from  a  Carnal  Presence          .  66-8 
Parker's  view  not  likely  to  have  been  lower  :  but  no  Writings  of  his  on 
the  subject             .                .                .                .                .                .68 

Incidental  proof  of  the  Doctrine  then  held,  found  in  .ZElfric's  Ang.  Sax. 

Horn,  re-published  by  Parker  and  other  Bishops  in  1556              .  68-9 
Omission  of  the  Paragraph=the  Declaration,  in  Art.  xxix.  1571             .  69 
The  Declaration  restored  to  the  P.  Book  in  1662,  though  thought  un- 
necessary by  the  Bishops                               ...  70 
Burnet's  account  of  the  cause  of  their  yielding         .                .                .  ib. 
Changed  language  of  it  due  to  Bp.  Gunning     .                .                .  71 
The  restoration  of  it  proposed  by  Bp.  Gauden          .                .                .72 
Probable  co-operation  of  Gauden  and  Gunning  to  clear  it  of  words 

which  were  seemingly  not  actually  against  the  Real  Presence       .  ib. 

Presumable  concurrence  of  the  other  Bishops           .              .+              ,*\  73 
TRANSUBSTANTIATION  the  only  opinion  of  the  Real  Presence  excluded 

by  the  Declaration         .                .                .                .              .r  ib. 

High  language  on  the  subject  sanctioned  by  Cranmer,  Ridley,  and  others  ib. 

Near  approach  to  agreement  between  Cranmer  and  Gardiner,  in  1550     .  73-5 

Importance  of  this  illustration  from  the  Sun  — used  also  by  Ridley  .  75 


CONTENTS.  IX 

PAGE. 

Reference  to  unpublished  Letter  of  Cranmer  to  the  Privy  Council,  "  de- 
fending the  practice  of  Kneeling  at  the  Sacrament,"  Oct.  7,  1552  .  p.s.  76 

POSTSCRIPT.    No.  2. 

I.  The  Letter  of  Cranmer,  referred  to  in  p.s.  No.  1     •-  ' .    '        -    ."   •          77-9 
It  confirms  the  suggestions  of  p.  36          .  '•;-  r  |> ':.  .          79 

Cranmer's  reasons  for  Kneeling,  no  proof  that  he  did  not  hold  the  Real 

Presence         .  - •"•«-  v  ' "  *  •"'<       '-'">  3  .  80 

Politic  nature  of  his  argument  ;*          .»••.•          '.>:*v  •       80'2 

The  Letter  no  proof  of  his  alleged  disbelief  (in  1652)  in  Consecration  82-4 

His  belief  on  that  subject  shewn  in  :  — 

Foxe's  "  Life,  State,  and  Story  of  Thomas  Cranmer,"  1553      *          84 
Cranmer's  "  Defence  of  the  True  and  Catholic  Doctrine  of  the 

Sacrament."      1550      '»'•''''*        "i*^.  •  .  av  *U>^  85 

Bp.  Cosin  on  Calvin's  belief       .  '  '.  - •'#.       Note       86-7 

Cranmer's  Answer  to  Gardiner,  1551  rr  j.-l*         '  .'«••  87-9 

Rubric  in  the  P.  Book  of  1552  as  to  the  unconsecrated  Elements 

— Mr.  Cheyne's  error  as  to  it  .  ;'..V-         Note       89 

Proceedings  at  Trent  and  difficulty  of  agreement  with  Calvin  and  others 
might  have  induced  Cranmer  to  publish  Art.  xxix.,  1552,  in  part  as  a 
protest  and  defence  .  .  .  *;»;  *  .  90-1 

Moderation  of  the  Article — Vehemence  of  the  Trent  Decree  .  92 

JOHN  KNOX  probably  the  actual  complainant  of  the  Rubric  on  Kneeling, 
though  representing  others ;  gathered  from  : — 

Strype's  notice  of  his  appointment  (as  one  of  the  Six  Chaplains) 

to  revise  the  Articles— 1552  .  *  .  '  <j.-«        •  U  -      93 

Letter  of  John  Utenhovius  to  Hen,  Bullinger,  Lond.  Oct.  12, 

1552  lo «g  <  ib. 

Duke  of  Northumberland's  Letter  to  Cecil,  Oct.  28,  1552      ^suVs      94 
Knox*s  "  Admonition  to  the  professors  of  God's  truth  in  Eng* 

land,"  1554      .  .  -.  anv       >  •  U*  ib. 

Duke  of  Northumberland's  2nd  Letter  to  Cecil,  Dec.  7,  1552  .          95 
"  Memoranda  of  matters  to  be  brought  before  the  Council," 

Oct.  20,  1552  >>v'<i,  .  *ri  jr; -•        qlifsfc  96 

Entry  in  Council  Book,  Feb.  2,  1552-3     .  ;  r  .          ib. 

Letter  from  Knox,  Ap.  14,  1553— Laing's  life  of  Knox     .  96 

The  Chancellor  (Goodrick  Bishop  of  Ely)  not  likely  to  have  been  opposed 
to  the  Doctrine  of  the  Real  Presence,  shewn  from  :— 

His  character  given  in  Chalmer' s  Biog.  Diet.         .  ;*.  r;*  jfcuJ       98 

Burnet's  opinion  of  him,  Hist.  Ref.       *         r-  »  •  r;j  »i  ib. 

Further  proof  of  Knox  being  the  objector  to  the  Rubric,  in  Western's 

language  to  Latimer,  Disputation  at  Oxford,  Ap.  18,  1554  .  .          ib. 

Probable  error  of  Townsend,   Wordsworth,  and  Strype  in  supposing 

that  Weston  referred  to  Aless  and  not  to  Knox  .  .  99-102 

Incidental  proof  from  Foxe's  Note  on  Weston,  that  the  Doctrine  of  the 
Real  Presence  was  recognized  in  1554  '  •„  •  •  102-4 

b 


X  CONTENTS. 

PAGE. 

Knox  probably  did  not  object  to  Kneeling  at  Sacrament  as  being  an  act 

of  Adoration  .....  104-5 

Nor  on  account  of  his  opinions  on  Eucharistic  Presence          .  .     105-8 

But  from  his  antipathy  to  Transubstantiation  and  dread  of  a  Carnal 
Presence  .  ...  108-9 

Knox  approved  and  signed  Articles  of  1552  at  the  time  he  objected  to 

Kneeling  at  the  Sacrament  .  .  .  .109 

Eucharistic  Article  of  1552  opposed  Transubstantiation,  Ubiquitarian- 

ism,  and  Zwinglianism :  not  the  Real  Presence  .  .  110-111 

Knox's  objection  to  Kneeling  probably  not  Doctrinal  but  Ecclesiastical  .         112 

Cranmer  felt  it  necessary  to  meet,  not  yield  to,  the  objection  .  ib. 

'This  done  by  the  explanation  in  the  Declaration      .  .  .         113 

Apparent  policy  of  Cranmer  in  framing  the  Declaration  upon  the 
language  of  the  Eucharistic  Article  which  he  probably  knew  Knox, 
and  the  King's  other  five  Chaplains,  to  have  approved  .  114 

Comparison  of  Art.  xxix.  and  the  Declaration          .  .  .    114-18 

The  well-considered  terms  of  that  Article  (especially  as  compared  with 

Hooper's  10th  Art.)  favorable  to  the  Heal  Presence  .  .  118-19 

Conclusion  from  these  considerations— That  the  Original  Declaration 
was  only  designed  to  deny  the  Presence  commonly  held  to  be  in- 
volved in  Transubstantiation  .  .  .  .119 

Cranmer' s  Letter  corrects  Dr.  Card  well's  supposed  Royal  Authority  of 

the  Declaration  .  .  .  .  .  .  120 

Dr.  Cardwell's  mistake  as  to  the  Editions  in  which  the  Declaration  ap- 
peared, and  as  to  the  Order  in  Council  giving  evidence  of  alarm  about 
the  Real  Presence  .  ...  121-22 

Cranmer's  Letter  seems  to  shew  that  "  reverently "  in  the  Rubric  of 
1662,  as  to  Consumption  of  the  remains  of  the  Sacrament,  means 
Kneeling  .  .  .  .  .  .  122 

No  direction  on  the  point  needed  in  the  Books  of  1549,  1552,  and  1559, 

owing  to  the  existing  custom  .  .  .  .123 

But  a  Rubric  touching  it  was  put  in  Scotch  P.  B.  of  1636-7  .  124 

The  Rubric  of  1662  probably  traceable  to  this         «  .  .125 

Cranmer  would  probably  have  used  the  Rubrical  term  "  reverently  "  : — 
for,  though  he  held  that  the  Presence  is  in  the  Ministration,  he  must 
also  have  considered  the  consumption  of  the  remains  of  the  Sacra- 
ment as  part  of  the  Ministration  .  .  .  .  ib. 

Therefore  he  would  have  required  from  all  the  same  posture  at  Com- 
munion and  Consumption  ....  126-7 

Standing,  the  proper  and  reverent  posture  of  the  Celebrant :  Kneeling 
that  of  all  others  .  .  .  Notes  126-127  128 

The  Reviewers  of  1662  could  not  have  held  less  than  Cranmer  on  this 
point  ......  ib. 

This  shown  in  the  new  or  altered  Rubrics  of  1662 — all  designed  to  pro- 
mote Reverence  *  ,  .  128-9 


CONTENTS.  XI 

PAGE. 

The  Instructions  to  the  Commissioners  shew  this ;  and  point  to  Ancient 

Liturgies  for  interpretation  of  doubtful  Rubrics  .  .  130 

<4  Reverently  "=KNEELING,  in  the  Rubric  "  Whilst  these  sentences"  etc.     131-1 

"  Reverently  "=STANDING,  in  the  Rubric  "  When  all  have  communi- 
cated" etc.  ......  134-5 

"  Reverently  "==  KNEELING  and  STANDING,  in  the  Rubric  "  the  Priest 

and  such  other  of  the  Communicants  as  he  shall  then  call "  etc.       .  136 

Further  proof  that  the  Communicating  posture  is  also  the  posture  of 
Consumption,  inferred  from  the  known  opinions  of  Bp.  Cosin  and 
from  other  considerations  .....  137-52 

II.  Cranmer's  Letter  does  not  furnish  Theological  Arguments  for 
Kneeling  at  Communion :  these,  therefore,  to  be  sought  elsewhere  in 
his  writings  .  .  .  .  .  153 

His  Catechism  of  1548  teaches  the  Real  Objective  Presence    .  .        155 

Examination  of  doubts  raised  as  to  this  »  .  .  157-8 

Cranmer  held  the  same  Doctrine  of  the  Presence  in  1548  and  1551         .     158-9 

Mr.  Goode's  error  in  claiming  Cranmer's  changed  opinion  in  1548  as 
proof  that  when  he  put  out  the  1st  Bk.  of  Homilies  (in  1547)  "he  had 
not  then  embraced  the  true  doctrine  of  the  Eucharist "  .  160-2 

Examination  of  a  suggestion  by  a  Prelate  —that  the  phrase  "  under  the 
form  of  bread  and  wine,"  in  the  Advertisement  of  1st  Bk.  of  Homi- 
lies, was  "  surreptitiously  introduced "  .  .  .  162-5 

Cranmer  not  in,  what  he  himself  calls,  the  "  error  of  the  real  presence" 
when  he  published  the  Catechism  of  1548— shewn  from  statements  of 
Strype,  Dr.  Burton,  and  Mr.  Fisher  .  .  .  165-71 

Cranmer's  real  opinion  then,  gathered  by  comparison  with  that  of  Bp. 
Hooper  and  with  a  statement  of  Bp.  Gardiner  .  .  .  171-5 

Doubtfulness  of  the  assumption  that  Cranmer's  opinions  on  the  Eucha- 
ristic  Presence  were  influenced  by  Bucer  .  .  .  175 

Yet,  if  so,  Bucer  would  have  led  him  towards  Objective  Presence  .     175-6 

Cranmer's  own  definition  of  the  word  "Corporal"  .  .  177-8 

Cranmer's  own  statements  as  to  the  nature  of  the  Presence,  when  (in 
1552)  he  had  gone  farthest  towards  low  views  of  Eucharistic  Doc- 
trine .  .  .  .  .  .  178-86 

Further  proofs  from  his  contemporaries— that  the  Physical  Presence,  held 
to  be  involved  in  Transubstantiation,  was  the  great  point  of  opposition 
by  the  Reforming  party  ....  186-9 

Proceedings  in  1559,  at  the  review  of  the  42  Articles  under  Elizabeth,  as 
stated  by  Bp.  Burnet  and  others,  illustrate  Burnet's  account  of  the 
omission  of  the  Declaration  from  the  P.  Book  of  1559  .  .  189-91 

But  there  is  evidence  that  the  Declaration  continued  to  be  published  in 

some  other  way      ......         191 

The  retention  in  it,  at  that  time,  of  "  real  and  essential,"  implies  that  it 

only  condemned  "  the  Corporal  presence "     .  .  .  192 

Bp.  Geste's  Letter  of  Dec.  22,  1566,  on  the  Real  Presence,  is  evidence 
of  the  moaning  attached  to  the  Declaration  at  that  time  .  .  192-4 


Xii  CONTENTS. 

PAGE. 

Doubt  thrown  by  Mr.  Goode  on  the  value  of  that  Letter,  in  producing 
portions  of  another  (supposed)  Letter  from  the  same  Bishop  to  Lord 
Burghley,  dated  May  1571  ....  194 

The  entire  Document  now  printed  in  order  to  clear  up  the  difficulty      .  195-204 

Mr.  Goode's  remarks  upon  the  Letter  of  1566  not  supported,  as  he 
allegep,  by  §§  8,  9,  10,  and  11  of  the  Letter  of  1551 :  for:  — 

No  proof  that  Bp.  Guest  and  the  Convocation  passed  the  Articles 
with  contradictory  objects  .  .  .  206 

Art.  xxix,  as  understood  by  Guest,  not,  as  Mr.  Goode  says,  "  Entirely 
irreconcilable  with  his  view  of  the  Presence  " — there  is  a  difference 
of  language  ......  207-8 

The  Articles  did  undergo  changes  during  the  Convocation  of  1571  208 

Ee-adoption  of  Art.  xxix  probably  then  discussed  .  .        209 

Parker  perhaps  removed  Guest's  objection  to  its  language,  for  Guest  re- 
asserts, in  §  9,  the  statement  of  Letter  of  1566  .  .  210-11 

Guest's  consideration  for  Cheney,  no  proof  that  "Parker  and  the  Bishops" 

differed,  as  Mr.  Goode  says,  from  Guest  .  .  .212-14 

The  non-insertion  of  "profitably,"  proposed  by  Guest,  no  proof  that  it 
was  rejected,  as  Mr.  Goode  says  .  .  .  .  214-15 

Unlikely  that,  as  Mr.  Goode  thinks,  Bp.  Guest  was  the  objector  to  Art. 
xxix,  referred  to  in  Abp.  Parker's  Letter  to  Lord  Burghly,  June  4, 
1571  — more  likely  to  have  been  Bp.  Cheney  .  .  .215-17 

An  error  to  suppose,  as  Mr.  Goode  does,  that  the  absence  of  the  names 
of  Guest  and  Cheney  from  the  signatures  of  the  Fifteen  Abps.  and 
JBps.  to  the  Preface  of  JElfric's  Anglo-Saxon  Homily,  implies  a  disa- 
greement as  to  its  Doctrine  ....  217-20 

Bp.  Guest's  objections  to  other  Articles  which  nevertheless  were  not 

altered,  a  further  probable  proof  of  his  acquiescence  in  Art.  xxix         .     220-4 

Cheney  perhaps  availed  himself  of  the  apparent  freedom  of  the  Bishops 

from  subscribing  the  Articles          ....  224 

Mr.  Goode's  conclusion  not  proved — that  Bp.  Guest's  interpretation  of 

Art.  xxviii  is  "  inadmissible "  .  .  .  .          ib. 

Further  light  thrown  upon  Guest's  opinions  then,  in  the  rest  of  the 
Letter  of  May  1571  where  he  argues  against  the  Bill  "toching  coming 
to  ye  Church,  and  receiving  ye  Sacrament "  .  .  224-6 

Important  distinction  which  he  made  between  the  two  propositions — 
resisting  the  latter  on  the  ground  that  it  was  "to  go  aboute  to  des- 
troye"  "the  papistes"  who  did  not  believe  "  ye  Sacrament"  in  the 
Church  of  England  to  "  be  ye  Lordes  body  "  .  .  226-9 

The  withdrawal  of  the  Bill  an  indication  that  his  Doctrine  of  the  Real 

Objective  Presence  was  then  a  recognized  one  .  .          229-30 

Examination  of  Mr.  Goode's  assertion  that  Bp.  Guest  did  not  Subscribe 
the  Articles  of  1562— reasons  for  doubting  it  .  .  .  231-5 

Analysis  of  Bp.  Jewel's  controversy  with  Harding  on  the  Eucharist          235-41 

No  proof  from  it  that,  as  Mr.  Goode  says,  his  belief  on  the  Real  Presence 

differed  from  that  of  Bp.  Guest      .  ..  .  .  241-2 


CONTENTS.  Xili 

PAGE. 

Analysis  continued     ......     243-9 

Mr.  Freeman's  opinion  of  the  Presence  noticed  .  .   Note  248-9 

Conclusion— that  Bp.  Jewel's  main  purpose  was  to  oppose  a  physical, 

carnal  Presence       .  .  .  .  .  .250 

Mr.  Goode's  accusation  disproved— that  Dr.  Pusey  has  made  "a  double 

attempt  to  mislead  the  reader"  in  his  reference  to  S.  Isidore       .  251-5 

Eeply  to  Mr.  Goode's  complaint  of  Dr.  Pusey's  Eucharistic  "  terminology  "  255-7 

Observations  upon  Mr.  Goode's  remark  that  the  Bp.  of  S.  David's  has 
noticed  condemningly  Dr.  Pusey's  Work  on  the  testimony  of  the 
Fathers  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  257-9 

Examination  of  Mr.  Goode's  complaint  that  Dr.  Pusey  in  his  "  discussion 
of  the  meaning  of  the  Advertisement  at  the  end  of  the  first  Book  of 
Homilies"  does  not  "notice"  a  passage  which  he  had  cited  from 
Cranmer's  reply  to  Gardiner  .  .  .  .260-2 

Answer  to  Mr.  Goode's  assertion  that  "it  cannot  be  supposed  that 

[Cranmer]  inserted  "  the  Advertisement  .  .  .     262-4 

Bp.  Jewel's  use  of  the  phrase  in  the  Advertisement,  coupled  with  the 
belief  that  he  edited  the  2nd  Bk.  of  Homilies,  indicates  that  he  con- 
sidered it  authoritative  .....  264-70 

The  employment  of  the  Phrase,  though  with  variations,  in  the  Reformed 
Primers  1545-75,  a  forcible  reason  for  believing  that  it  was  fully  re- 
cognized by  authority  .....  270-4 

The  fact  that  tbe  Editions  from  1545  to  1551  were  issued  during  Cran- 
mer's Episcopate— a  period  when  Eucharistic  Doctrine  was  continually 
discussed — implies  his  cognizance  of  their  publication  .  .  275-7 

The  Primer  sanctioned  by  Statute  1549-50  .  .  .276 

The  harmony  of  language  between  the  Advertisement  of  1547  and  the 
Primer  of  1551,  an  indication  that  Cranmer  approved  the  Advertise- 
ment ......  277 

The  Reformed  Primer  not  being  reprinted  in  Q.  Mary's  reign,  though 
an  Unreformed  one  was,  implies  that  the  Phrase  in  the  Prayer  was 
not  adequate  to  express  Transubstantiation  .  .  .  278-9 

Its  re-issue  in  15.59,  under  Abp.  Parker,  together  with  a  new  Ed.  of  the 
Homilies  containing  the  Advertisement,  an  argument  that  Abp.  Parker 
approved  the  Phrase  .....  279 

The  fact  that  Jewel  was  not  then  ( 1559)  Bishop,  no  proof  that  he  would 
have  objected  ;  for  he  did  not  disown  it  in  his  publications  of  1565  and 
1567  .  .  .  .  .  .  .280 

The  noticeable  omission  of  the  Phrase  in  the  Ed.  of  1566  or  1575  (which- 
ever is  the  true  Date)  implies  its  allowance  until  then  .  281 

This  omission  of  it  in  the  Primer  though  not  iu  the  Advertisement,  no 

inconsistency,  but  rather  a  proof  that  it  was  not  abandoned  .     282-3 

Necessity  of  noticing  the  additions  to  the  Catechism  under  K.  James  i. — 

Mr.  Fisher's  opinion  of  them         ....  283-5 

Statement  of  the  Doctrine  of  the  Real  Presence  in  the  Irish  Articles  of 

1615  285 


XIV  CONTENTS. 

PAGE. 

Examination  of  Mr.  Goode's  objection  to  the  allegation  that  "  the  faith- 
ful "  in  the  Catechism  "  merely  means  ....  every  body  who  comes 
to  communicate "  .  .  .  .  286 

Analysis  of  his  quotations  from  twenty  one  Commentaries,  1623 — 1790, 
which  he  says  "  have  agreed  in  interpreting  the  words  as  referring  to 
true  believers"— they  do  not  support  his  statement  .  .  286-90 

Mr.  Goode's  definition  of  "the  faithful "  opposed  to  its  use  in  the  Apos- 
tolical Epistles  .....  291 

And  to  passages  in  the  Ancient  Liturgies  .  .  .291-3 

And  to  the  testimony  of  Ecclesiastical  Writers  or  Historians  .  293-4 

And  to  the  places  in  which  the  term  has  been  or  is  employed  in  the 

English  Prayer  Book  ....  294-301 

Eesumption  of  Enquiry  at  p.  72  whether  Bp.  Gauden  "  did  not  hold 

high  views  of  the  Real  Presence,  through  denying  Transubstantiation  "  301-2 

Affirmative  answer  from  his  "  Tears,  Sighs,  Complaints  and  Prayers  of 
the  Church  of  England"  &c.  1659  :  and  his  "Counsell  which  theBp. 
of  Exeter  delivered  to  xlix  Presbyter  and  Deacons  "  &c.  1660  .  303-6 

Agreement  of  this  "  Counsell"  with  the  Answer  of  the  Bishops  (of  whom 

Gauden  was  one)  in  the  Savoy  Conference  .  .  .  307-8 

Yet,  though  the  "  Counsell"  and  the  "Answer"  both  maintain  Kneeling 
at  the  Eucharist,  the  Bishops  (probably  including  Gauden)  refused  the 
Puritans'  request  to  restore  the  Declaration  .  .  .  308 

But  afterwards  Gauden  "  pressed  "  and  it  was  inserted :  apparently  only 

as  a  protest  against  Transnbstantiation  .  .  .  308-9 

Bp.  Gunning's  proposal  to  alter  "real  and  essential"  had  probably  met 

the  difficulty  .....  *.'  309 

Bp.  Gauden's  Eucharistic  belief  not  at  variance  with  this  change  in  the 
Declaration,  shewn  from  his  ""Whole  duty  of  a  Communicant"  &c. 
1681  ......  309-20 

Eleven  Propositions,  drawn  from  the  above  passages,  involving  the  ques- 
tions discussed  in  recent  controversies  on  the  Eucharist  .  .  320-2 

Examination  of  the  opinions  of  Bp.  Morley  who  supported  Bp.  Gauden 
when  pressing  the  restoration  of  the  Declaration— his  "  Vindication 
of  the  Argument  drawn  from  sense  against  Transubstantiation."  1683  322-6 

His  belief  further  tested  by  his  general  reference  to  Bp.  Morton — Ex- 
tracts from  his  (Morton's)  "Institution  of  the  Sacrament  of  the 
Blessed  Bodie  and  Blood  of  Christ"  &c.  1631 ;  his  "Catholic  Appeal" 
1610 ;  and  his  "  Defence  of  the  innocencie  of  ....  Kneeling  at  the 
receiving  of  the  Blessed  Sacrament,"  1619  .  .  .  326-9 

Dr.  Heylin's  statement  that  the  Declaration  was  omitted  in  1559  "lest 
under  colour  of  a  carnal  ...  a  real  presence  "  should  be  denied,  and 
his  probable  consent  to  its  changed  language,  testify  that  it  is  now 
only  a  protest  against  "  a  gross  and  carnal  Presence  "  .  .  330-1 

Bp.  Cosin's  opinions  probably  influenced  the  Review  of  1662:  his 
"  History  of  Popish  Transubstantiation  "  Chap,  iii.,  a  guide  therefore 
to  the  sense  in  which  the  Declaration  was  re-inserted  ,  331-6 


CONTENTS.  XV 

PAGE. 

Comparison  of  his  language  with  the  Declaration  .  .  336-8 

Examination  of  Mr.  Goode's  statement  that  the  Church  of  England,  hy 
the  Declaration  forbids  "the  doctrine  that  there  is  a  presence  of 
Christ's  natural  body  in  the  Supper,  either  in  a  natural  or  super- 
natural or  spiritual  manner,  and  either  adjoined  to  the  elements  or 
distinct  from  them  "  .....  339-41 

The  illustration,  from  the  Presence  of  the  Sun,  used  by  Mr.  Goode  (and 

formerly  by  Bucer,  Cranmer,  Jewel,  and  Ridley)  considered        .  341 

Enquiry — Can  the  Presence  of  the  Sun  in  the  earth  be  truly  regarded  as 

anything  more  than  what  is  called  a  virtual  Presence  ?        .  .  341-47 

The  answer  applied  to  explain  and  illustrate  the  Real  Presence  in  the 
Eucharist  ......  347-55 

Examination  of  the  reason  assigned  by  Mr.  Goode  for  the  exclusion  of 
the  Declaration  from  the  P.  Books  published  between  1552  and  1662  355-58 

Examination  of  Mr.  Goode's  quotations  from  Abraham  Woodhead  to 
prove  that  those  post-reformation  Divines  of  the  Church  of  England 
"who  held  the  highest  doctrine  of  the  Real  Presence"  only  held  "a 
Presence  to  the  receiver,  but  not  to  the  Elements."  .  .  359-79 

Reply  to  Mr.  Goode's  notice  of  Dr.  Pusey's  argument — that  the  Rubrical 
direction  as  to  the  remains  of  the  Sacrament  teaches  the  Objective 
Presence  .  .  .  .  .  .380-3 

Investigation  of  Mr.  Goode's  statement  that  "the  whole  object  of  the 
Declaration  is  to  point  out,  that  the  act  of  Kneeling  is  not  an  act  of 
adoration  to  Christ "  present  as  "  God  and  Man  "  .  .  383-6 

His  reference  to  the  7th  Canon  of  1640,  in  support  of  this  opinion,  shewn 

to  be  inapplicable  .....  386-8 

His  seeming  implication — that  as  the  Canon  was  "  drawn  up  under  the 
presidency  of  Abp.  Laud"  he  concurred  in  this  meaning  of  it,  dis- 
proved .......  388-93 

III.  Notice  and  application  of  the  Puritan  proposal,  in  Q.  Elizabeth's 

reign,  to  prostrate  at  the  Sacrament  .  .  .  393-4 

Fallacy  of  Mr.  Goode's  argument  — that  "if  Christ"  and  "the  Bread" 

are  "  one  whole "  it  is  "a  proper  object  of  worship  "  .  .     395-6 

Reply  to  his  objection — that  Bread  and  Christ's  Body  united  cannot  pro- 
perly be  called  by  either  name  alone  .  .  .  397 

Answer  to  his  statement— that  Bread  "  is  the  Body  of  Christ"  only  "  as 

a  picture  is  the  person  whom  it  represents "         .  .  398-404 

Bucer's  Letter  to  P.  Martyr,  June  20,  1549,  on  P.  Martyr's  Propositions, 
in  his  Disputation  at  Oxford,  touching  the  "  REAL  and  SUBSTANTIAL 
PRESENCE  of  Christ  in  the  Sacrament"  .  .  Note  398-402 

Liberty  of  belief  on  this  subject  allowed  by  him,  and  probably  in  the 

Church  of  England  ....          Note        402 

P.  Martyr's  "  Confession  ...  to  the  Senate  of  Strasburgh,  .  .  .  May 
1566,"  on  the  mode  in  which  the  Body  of  Christ  is  given  in  the 
Sacrament  .....  Note  402 

Mr.  Fisher  on  the  influence  of  Bucer  and  P.  Martyr  upon  Cranmer    Note        403 


XVI  CONTENTS. 

PAGE. 

Comparison  of  remarks  by  Mr.  Gorham  and  Mr.  Goode  on  Bucer's 

opinion  of  the  Invocation  in  the  Liturgy  of  1549  .          Note     403-6 

Bucer's  observations  on  Ubiquity,  Letter  to  P.  Martyr,  June  20,  1549 

Note        406 
Mr.  Goode's  statement — that  "This  is  my  Body"  must  mean  "  This  is 

really  and  substantially  my  Body," — how  to  be  considered  .  .     404-7 

Examination  of  his  assertion — That  all  the  expressions  in  P.  Bk.  of  1549 
which  indicate  a  Presence  "  in  the  Consecrated  Elements  "  disappeared 
in  the  subsequent  P.  Books  .  .  '  .  .  408-10 

Mr.  Fisher's  remarks  on  the  hindrance  to  the  Eeformation  caused  by  the 

Doctrine  of  Ees  Sacramenti,  considered  .  .         Note    409-10 

Bp.  Cosin  on  Objective  Presence  in  the  Elements  .  .  410-11 

The  statements  of  the  Bps.  in  1661—"  That  the  sense  of  "  the  Declaration 
*'  is  declared  sufficiently  in  the  28th  Article," — supported  by   com- 
paring the  two       .....  411-14 

Calvin  on  the  exhibition  of  Christ  in  Sacraments  .  Note        413 

The  comparison  sanctions  Objective  Presence  and  Adoration  .  414 

Alleged  danger  of  localizing  Christ's  Presence  on  earth,  not  real  .         415 

Nine  Propositions  (with  References)  as  to  Historical  belief  in  the  Church 
of  England,  on  the  Real  Presence,  drawn  from  the  preceding  Testi- 
monies and  Arguments  .  .  .  .  .  416 

General  Statement  gathered  from  these  Propositions  .  .    420-21 

Examination  of  a  Note  (pp.  479-82)  in  Mr.  Freeman's  "  Principles  of 

Divine  Service,"  vol.  ii.  pt.  2        .  .  .  .          421-42 

Conclusion  .  .  .  .  .  .442 

Index  443-56 


SOME 

HISTORICAL  CONSIDERATIONS, 


-ETC. 


MY  LORD, 

Scarcely  a  fortnight  ago  I  heard,  -with  much  concern, 
that  a  Synod  of  the  Scottish  Bishops  had  been  specially 
summoned  for  the  27th  of  this  month,  to  consider  whether 
any  and  what  steps  should  be  taken  by  their  Lordships  in 
consequence  <of  grave  complaints  which  have  been  made 
imputing  heterodoxy  to  certain  statements  in  the  Bishop  of 
Brechin's  Primary  Charge. 

In  common  with  others  I  was  aware  that  these  charges 
(which,  as  is  publicly  known,  were  brought  before  the  Synod 
of  Bishops  by  the  Bishop  of  Glasgow  some  months  ago) 
threatened  to  occupy  their  Lordships'  attention  in  the  coming 
September :  though,  indeed,  we  indulged  a  hope — that  the 
excitement  and  agitation,  so  strangely  caused,  becoming 
allayed  and  the  Bishop  of  Brechin's  own  explanations  and 
proofs  of  his  statements  in  his  recently  published  2nd  Edition 
being  attentively  considered,  either  the  promoter  or  pro- 
moters of  the  Charges  might  be  led  to  withdraw  them,  or 
that  the  Synod  would  deem  it  best  not  to  entertain  them. 

In  this  hope  we  have  been  unhappily  disappointed  ;  and 
we  cannot  but  be  doubly  anxious  as  to  any  statement  which 
may  be  put  forth  by  the  Synod  now  summoned,  so  unex- 
pectedly and  suddenly,  to  debate  certain  Propositions,  which 
it  is  understood  the  Bishops  are  to  be  asked  to  affirnij  condem- 
natory of  points  in  that  Charge. 


2 

There  seems  reason  to  think  that  the  questions  to  be  dis- 
cussed may  be  materially  affected  by  the  meaning  which  the 
Synod  might  attach  to  the  well  known  Declaration  on  Kneeling 
which  is  appended  to  the  English  Communion  Office. 

Some  little  time  since  I  happened  to  mention  to  a  friend 
that  I  had  reason  to  think  there  were  grounds  for  forming  an 
opinion  of  this  Declaration  different  from  those  usually  held ; 
my  observation  having  been  quoted  by  him  at  a  meeting  of 
gentlemen  assembled  in  consequence  of  the  announcement  of 
the  coining  Synod,  I  was  asked  by  them  to  put  together  at 
once  any  statements  or  facts  which  had  led  to  that  opinion. 

This,  my  Lord,  I  now  proceed  to  do  in  the  form  of  a  Letter 
to  yourself:  only  premising  that  the  very  limited  time  allotted 
to  me  will  I  fear  prevent  so  ample  an  examination  of  the  sub- 
ject as  its  great  importance  demands. 

The  Declaration  in  question,  as  it  originally  appeared  in 
the  2nd  Prayer  Book  of  Edw.  VI.,  A.  D.  1552,  commences 
thus: — 

"  Althoughe  no  ordre  can  be  so  perfective  deuysed,  but  it  may 
be  of  some,  eyther  for  theyr  ignorance  and  infirmite,  or  els  of 
malice  and  obstinacie,  mysconstrued,  depraued,  and  interpreted  in 
a  wrong  parte.  And  yet  because  brotherly  charitie  willeth,  that  so 
muche  as  conueniently  may  be  offences  should  be  taken  awav  : 
therefore  we  willing  to  dooe  the  same." 

Then  follows  the  form  which  (with  such  verbal  changes  as 
will  be  seen  by  a  comparison  of  the  two  texts)  also  appeared 
in  the  revised  Book  of  Charles  II.,  A.  D.  1662.  The  words 
printed  here,  and  throughout  the  following  pages,  in  Egyptian 
type,  indicate  the  expressions  on  which  the  present  contro- 
versy turns. 

1552.  1662. 

"  Whereas  it  is  ordeyned  in  "  Whereas  it  is  ordained  in 
the  Booke  of  Common  Prayer,  this  Office  for  the  administration 
in  the  administracion  of  the  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  that  the 
Lordes  Supper,  that  the  Com-  Communicants  should  receive 
municantes  kneelynge  should  re-  the  same  kneeling;  (which  Order 
ceiue  the  Holye  Communion  :  is  well  meant,  for  a  signification 
whiche  thynge  beynge  well  mente  of  our  humble  and  grateful  ac- 
for  a  sygnificacyon  of  the  hum-  knowledgement  of  the  benefits 


ble  and  gratefuil  acknowledgeyne 
of  the  benefites  of  Christe,  given 
unto  the  woorthye  receyuer,  and 
to  auoyde  the  prophanacion  and 
dysordre  whiche  about  the  Holye 
Communion  myghte  elles  ensue. 
Lest    yet    the    same    kneelynge 
might  be  thought  or  taken  other- 
wyse,  we  dooe  declare  that  it  is 
not    mente    thereby,    that    any 
adoracion  is  doone,  or  oughte  to 
bee  doone,  eyther  unto  the  Sacra- 
mentall    bread    or    wyne    there 
bodelye  receyued,    or   unto  any 
I'eall    and    essenciall    presence 
there   beeyng    of    Chrystes    na- 
tlirall  fleshe  and  bloude.     For 
as  concernynge  the  Sacramentall 
bread  and  wyne, they  remayne  sty  11 
in  theyr  verye  naturall  substaunces 
and     therefore     may     not     bee 
adored,  for   that  were  Idolatrye 
to    be   abhored    of  all  faythfull 
Christians.     And  as  concernynge 
the  naturall  bodye  and  bloud  of 
our  Sauiour  Christ,   they  are  in 
heaueti  and  not  here  :  for  it  is 
agaynst    the    trueth    of  Christes 


of    Christ    therein    given    to  all 
worthy  Receivers,    and    for   the 
avoiding  of  such  profanation,  and 
disorder  in  the  Holy  Communion, 
as  might  otherwise  ensue  ;)  Yet, 
lest  the  same  kneeling  should  by 
any  persons,  either  out  of  igno- 
rance   and  infirmity,  or    out   of 
malice    and    obstinacy,    be  mis- 
construed   and   depraved ;    it  is 
here    declared,    that  thereby  no 
Adoration  is  intended,  or  ought 
to  be  done,  either,  unto  the  Sa- 
cramental bread  or  wine,    there 
bodily  received,  or  unto  any  COr- 
poral  presence  of  Christ's  natu- 
ral Flesh  and  Bloud.     For  the 
Sacramental  bread  and  wine  re- 
main still  in  their  very  natural 
substances,    and    therefore    may 
not   be    adored  :  (for  that  were 
idolatrie    to   be   abhorred  of  all 
faithful     Christians ; )     and    the 
natural  Body  and  Bloud  of  our 
Saviour  Christ  are  in  heaven,  and 
not  here  ;    it  being  against   the 
truth  of  Christ's  natural  Body 
to  be  at  one  time  in  more  places 
than  one." 


true  naturall  bodye,  to  be  in  moe 
places  then  in  one  at  one  tyme." 

Two  opinions  have,  more  or  less,  prevailed  with  regard  to 
this  Declaration  ;  the  one — that,  in  both  its  forms,  it  was  de- 
signed to  exclude  any  doctrine  of  a  Real  Presence :  the 
other — that  the  earlier  form  had  this  object,  but  that  the 
later,  by  the  substitution  of  the  word  " corporal"  for  the 
words  "  real  and  essential"  was  meant  to  maintain  the 
Catholic  doctrine  of  the  Real  Presence,  as  opposed  to  that 
doctrine  of  the  Real  Presence  which  is  held  to  be  involved  in 
the  dogma  of  Transubstantiation. 

I  venture  to  think  that  neither  of  these  views  is  the  true 
one:  but  (1)  That  both  forms  of  the  Declaration  were  intended 
to  express  the  same  thing  ;  and  (2)  That  the  precise  object  of 
both  was,  neither  more  nor  less  than — To  disclaim  for  the  Church 
of  England  a  belief  in  any  VISIBLE  or  INVISIBLE  Presence  of 
Christ's  NATURAL  Body  and  Blood  LOCALLY  iti  the  Eucharist. 


i 

Any  tone  of  faith,  however  strong  ;  any  terms  conveying  it, 
however  exalted;  these,  I  humbly  believe,  were  designed  to 
be  allowed  ;  provided  they  did  not  involve  that  Doctrine 
which,  I  allege,  was  disavowed  in  the  Declaration  ;  while  a 
definite  Corporal  Act  was  prescribed,  adequate  to  express  the 
highest  belief,  and  that  THE  ACT  OF  KNEELING. 

Now,  the  real  question  to  be  considered  is  not, — What  can 
this  Declaration  be  fairly  made  to  mean  by  strict,  much  less 
by  ingenious,  criticism  ?  but — To  what  conclusion  shall  we  be 
led  by  an  induction  of  Historical  facts  and  opinions  connected, 
with  its  promulgation  at  both  periods  ? 

It  is  my  present  conviction  that  the  interpretation  I 
have  alleged  is  that  interpretation  which  Documentary  evi- 
dence goes  to  prove ;  and  this  is  what  I  purpose  now  to  en*- 
deavour  to  establish  in  the  following  Historical  enquiry. 

I  have  suggested  that  the  earlier,  equally  with  the  later,, 
form  of  the  Declaration  was  designed  only  to  exclude  any 
doctrine  of  a  LOCAL  NATURAL  (i.e.  a  carnal,  physical,  organical) 
Presence  in  the  Sacrament  of  the  Lord's  Supper.  The  question 
then  obviously  arises,  and  must  first  be  answered,  Was  such 
a  Presence  maintained  by  any  in  the  Church  of  England  in, 
1552,  when  this  Declaration  was  put  forth?  History  proves 
that  it  was;  and  moreover  it  also  proves  that  the  Declaration 
under  consideration  (though  issued,  as  will  be  seen  hereafter, 
by  way  of  explanation  to  the  Puritan,  rather  than  as  a  protest 
against  the  Roman  party)  was  only  one  in  a  series  of  endea- 
vours to  extirpate  a  doctrine  which  had  taken  root,  and  had 
propagated  itself  widely  among  both  clergy  and  people. 

The  period  which  this  enquiry  must  embrace  commences 
naturally  with  the  reign  of  Edward  VI. ;  but  it  may  be  use- 
ful to  notice  the  doctrine  which  was  authoritatively  insisted 
upon  just  prior  to  his  Accession ;  perhaps  this  may  be  conve- 
niently done  by  referring  to  the  test  then  applied  to  Shaxton, 
Bishop  of  Salisbury.  This  Prelate,  as  his  Injunctions  of 
1538  prove,  was  in  the  matter  of  Ceremonies,  a  Reforming 
Bishop  ;  and  Burnet,  writing  of  1546,  says  : — 

"Nicholas  Shaxton,  that  was  bishop  of  Salisbury,  had  been 
long  prisoner  ;  but  this  year,  he  had  said  in  his  imprisonment, 


in  the  Counter  in  Bread-street,  that  Christ's  natural  Body  was  not 
in  the  Sacrament,  but  that  it  was  a  Sign  and  Memorial  of  His  Body 
that  ivas  crucified  for  us.  Upon  this  he  was  indicted  and  condemned 
to  be  burnt.  But  the  King  [Hen.  viii.]  sent  the  Bishops  of  London 
and  Worcester  to  deal  with  him  to  recant  ;  which  on  the  9th  of 
July  he  did,  acknowledging,"  That,  (to  quote  his  letter  to  the 
King  as  given  by  Foxe)  "  within  this  yere  I  have  fallen  into  that 
mooste  detestable  and  mooste  abhomynable  heresye  of  them  that 
bee  callid  Sacramentaries  denyeing  wretchedlie  the  presence  of 
Chryst's  bleassed  body  in  tholye  Sacrament  of  the  aultare." 

Among  the  recantation  Articles,  which  he  says,  "  I  with 
my  harte  doo  believe,  and  with  my  mouthe  doo  confesse,"  are 
the  following : 

"  The  fyrste.  Allmightie  God  by  the  power  of  His  woorde 
pronounced  by  the  Priest  at  Masse  in  the  consecration,  turneth  the 
breade  and  wyne  into  the  very  liatlirall  body  and  blood  of  oure 
Saviour  Jhesu  Chryste.  Soo  that  after  the  consecration  there 
remayneth  noo  substaunce  of  breadde  and  wyne,  but  onely  the 
substaunce  of  Cryste,  God  and  man. 

"  The  thyrd.  The  same  bleassed  Sacrament  being  consecrate 
ys  and  ought  to  be  worshipped  and  adored  with  godly  honour  where- 
soever yt  ys :  forasmoche  as  yt  ys  the  bodie  of  Cryste  inseperably 
unyted  to  the  Deitie. 

"  The  fyfte.  The  same  body  and  bloude  whiche  ys  offered  in  the 
Masse  ys  the  very  propitiation  and  satisfaction  for  the  synnes  of  the 
woorlde  forasmoehe  as  yt  ys  the  selfsame  ill  SUbstliailCe  whiche 
was  offered  upon  the  crosse  for  oure  redemption. 

"  The  nynth.  The  Masse  used  in  this  Realme  of  Englande  ys 
agreeable  to  thinstitution  of  Chryste.  And  wee  have  in  this  Churche 
of  Englande  the  verie  true  Sacrament  whiche  ys  the  very  body  and 
bloudde  of  oure  Savyour  Chryste  under  the  forme  of  bredde  and 
wyne."— Burnet,  Hist.  Eef.  vol.  1,  bk.  3,  p.  325,  fol.  1715;  and 
Foxe,  Acts  and  Mon.  vol.  v.,  app.  17.  Ed.  1846. 

Now  whether  Shaxton  held  (as  is  probable)  the  more  refined 
view  which  is  implied  in  what  was  then  known  as  the  invisible 
Corporal  Presence,  these  Articles  do  not  enable  us  to  deter- 
mine :  but  that  a  grosser  view  of  the  Presence  of  Christ's 
NATURAL  Body  was  extensively  held,  is  plain  from  one  of 
the  earliest  acts  of  Edward's  Council  after  his  Accession. 

On  Nov.  4th,  1547,  was  passed  the  statute  1  Edw.  VI.  c.i. 
intitled  "  An  Act  against  such  as  shall  unreverently  speak 
against  the  Sacrament  of  the  Altar,  and  of  the  receiving 
thereof  in  both  kinds."  The  Act  recites  that,  owing  to 
"  certain  abuses  heretofore  committed  of  some,"  others  had 


"contemptuously  depraved,  despised,  or  reviled  the  same 
"most  holy  and  blessed  Sacrament."  (Stephens'  Eccl.  Stat., 
vol.  1 .,  p.  292).  What  had  in  part  produced  this  re-actionary 
irreverence  may  be  gathered  from  the  Royal  Proclamation, 
founded  upon  this  Statute,  which  was  issued  on  the  27th 
December  following.  It  relates  that : 

"  Some  of  "  the  King's  "  subjects,  not  contented  with  such  words 

and  terms  as  scripture  doth  declare  thereof and  that  the  Body 

and  Bloud  of  Jesu  Christ  is  there search  and  strive  unreverently 

whether  the  Body  and  Bloud  aforesaid  is  there  really  or  fig'lirately, 
locally  or  circumscriptly,  and  having  quantity  and  greatness,  or  but 
substantially  and  by  substance  only,  or  els  but  in  a  figure  and 
manner  of  speaking  ;  whether  His  blessed  Body  be  there,  head, 
leggs,  armes,  toes,  and  nails,  or  any  other  ways,  shape  and  manner, 
naked  or  clothed  ;  whether  He  is  broken  and  chewed,  or  He  is 
always  whole ;  whether  the  bread  there  remainetli  as  we  see,  or  how 
it  departeth  ;  whether  the  flesh  be  there  alone,  and  the  blood, 
or  part,  or  ech  in  other,  or  in  th'one  both,  in  th'other  but  only 
bloud ;  and  what  bloud ;  that  only  which  did  flow  out  of  the  side, 
or  that  which  remained " 

Consequently  all  persons  were  prohibited  from  open  con- 
troversy and  strife  on  the  subject,  and  from 

"  affirming  any  more  termes  of  the  said  blessed  Sacrament,  than 
be  expressly  taught  in  the  Holy  Scripture,  and  mentioned  in  the 
^bresaid  act," 

until  authority  should 

"  define,  declare  and  set  furthe  an  open  doctrine  thereof,  and 
what  termes  and  words  may  justly  be  spoken  thereby,  other  than  be 
expressly  in  the  Scripture  contained  in  the  Act  before  rehearsed." 
—  Cardwell,  Doc.  Ann.  vol.  I,  pp.  35-7. 

In  proof  of  the  existence  of  this  very  carnal  opinion,  two 
years  later,  I  may  cite  a  Conversation  between  Cranmer  and 
Honner,  Bishop  of  London,  on  Sept.  10,  1549:  the  Arch- 
bishop, in  consequence  of  some  remarks  which  Bonner  made, 

"...  .said  unto  him,  '  My  Lord  of  London  !  ye  speak  much  of  a 
presence  in  the  Sacrament ;  what  presence  is  there,  and  of  what 

presence  do  you  mean  ?*     Wherewith  the  Bishop spake  again 

to  the  Archbishop  very  earnestly,  and  said,  '  What  presence,  my 
Lord  ?  I  say  and  believe  that  there  is  the  Very  true  presence  of 
the  Body  and  Blood  of  Christ.  What  believe  you,  and  how  do  you 

believe,  my  Lord  ?'  Upon  which  words  the  Archbishop   asked 

him  further,  whether  He  were  there,  face,  nose,  mouth,  eyes,  arms, 
and  lips,  with  other  lineaments  of  His  Body?" 


Bonner,  indeed,  apparently  disavowed  such  a  physical 
notion,  for,  besides  aprevious  complaint  that  Hooper  misunder- 
stood him,  he,  shaking  his  head  observed,  as  Foxe  says, 
"  Oh  !  I  am  right  sorry  to  hear  your  Grace  speak  these 
words."  (Acts  $  Mon.  vol.  v.  p.  752).  Yet  the  very  fact  of  the 
Archbishop  mooting  the  point  argues  his  knowledge  that 
it  was  still  held  even  by  some  in  authority,  if  not  by  Bonner. 

Against,  then,  this  prevalent  doctrine  of  a  carnal  Presence 
in  the  Eucharist,  Cranmer,  Ridley,  and  others  who  were, 
more  or  less  directly,  concerned  in  preparing  the  First  Book 
of  Common  Prayer,  watchfully  and  determinedly  set  them- 
selves. Ridley  since  1545  when  he  began  to  study  Ratramn's 
book  "  on  the  Body  and  Blood  of  the  Lord,"  and  Cranmer 
since  1546,  when  Ridley  told  him  of  his  changed  views  on 
the  Eucharist,  had  been  carefully  investigating  the  subject  of 
Transubstantiation,  and  the  errors  of  doctrine  or  practice 
which  it  theoretically  or  practically  involved. 

It  was  under  such  circumstances  that  the  task  of  revising 
the  Public  Service  Books  was  completed ;  and  this  fact  on 
the  one  side,  coupled  with  the  fact  on  the  other  side — that 
Edward's  first  Prayer-book  was  thought  to  be,  and  was,  of 
such  a  character  that  even  the  unreforming  party  and  the 
adherents  of  the  Pope  could  and  did  use  it — may  serve  to 
shew  that  its  language  was  accounted  both  an  adequate 
exponent  of  ancient  doctrine  and  a  security  against  popular 
corruptions  of  it. 

That  it  was  so  accounted  may  be  gathered,  I  think,  (1)  from 
a  Document  (Domestic  Edw.  VI.  vol  vii.)  in  the  State  Paper 
Office,  (hitherto  unpublished  I  believe)  viz.  :  A  letter  from 
the  "  Duke  of  Somerset  to  Cardinal  Pole,  dated  4th  June? 
1549,  replying  to  his  letters  "  of  the  Sixth  of  Maie."  In  this 
Epistle,  which  mainly  relates  to  questions  arising  out  of  the 
then  relative  claims  and  positions  of  England  and  the  See  of 
Rome,  reference  is  made  to  the  new  Service  Book  in  the 
following  passage : — 

"  The  conclusion  and  that  yt  ye  make  thextreme  peryll  and 
daungier  maie  peradventure  be  knovven  to  you  at  Rome,  of  a  dis- 
sencion  amonges  ourBusshops  uppon  the  chiefeestpoyntes  of  Religion, 
We  here  do  knowe  no  such  thinge,  but  on  the  contrary,  by  a  com- 


8 

mon  agreement  of  all  the  chief  learned  men  in  the  realme,  the  tiling 
of  longe  time  and  maturely  debated  emonges  them  which  had  most 
opinyon  of  learninge  in  the  scriptures  of  God,  and  were  likeliest  to 
give  lest  to  affeccon  as  well  Busshops  as  other  equaly  and  indifferently 
chosen  of  judgment  not  coacted  with  superior  authorise,  nor  other- 
wise invited  but  of  a  common  agreament  emonges  them  ther  was  first 
agreament  on  pointes,  and  then  same  cominge  to  the  judgement  of 
the  hole  parliament,  not  severaly  devided,  but  all  men  admitted  to 
the  hearinge  and  debatinge  at  large,  before  all  states  and  persones 
hearinge  what  could  be  said  against  it  by  one  hole  consent  of 
thupper  and  nether  house  of  the  parliament  finally  concluded  and 
aproved,  and  so  a  forme  and  rite  of  service,  a  trade  and  doctryne  of 
relligion  by  that  authoritie  and  after  that  sort  allowed,  set  forthe 
and  establisshed  by  act  and  statute,  and  so  publisshed  and  divulged 
to  so  great  a  quiet  as  ever  was  in  Englond,  and  as  gladly  received 
of  all  partes,  whereof  ye  your  self  if  ye  had  bene  here  and  did  bere 
that  affeccon  ye  pretend  to  your  contrey  shuld  have  had  great 
cause  to  rejoise.  Yf  yet  in  a  schole  poynt  or  two  som  one  or  two 
peradventure  will  be  singuler  in  opinion  and  not  be  satisfied  in 
thinges  which  be  not  in  that  boke,  Whither  he  be  Busshop  or  other, 
as  ever  hitherto  it  hathe  bene  sene  in  all  metinges  of  learned  men, 
What  doth  that  derogate  the  quyet  of  the  Realme  when  thei  receyve 
the  lawe  and  be  obedient  unto  it. 

"  And  to  thiutent  ye  may  the  better  know  of  our  doeings  We 
have  delivered  to  those  which  brought  you  letters  the  Boke  of  Com- 
. mon  service,  the  same  whereof  heir  before  we  have  spoken,  agreed 
•on  in  the  Parliament.  In  the  which  yf  ye  can  fyend  eny  faulte  we 
shall  gladly  receyve  yor  lettres  and  here  yor  judgment  given  ther- 
upon,  and  shall  as  gently  cawse  the  reasons  to  be  rendred  unto  you, 
wherewith  we  do  not  fere  ye  shalbe  satisfied." 

The  Duke  concludes  by  inviting  the  Cardinal  to  return  to 
England — 

"Not  dowbting  but  sufficient  reason  grounded  uppon  Godes  word 
shalbe  given  unto  you  for  every  poynt  betwixt  us  and  you  in  variance. 
And  we  are  not  in  muche  feare  but  that  it  may  welbe  if  ye  did  se 
thinges  here  with  your  eyes  and  conferred  with  learned  men  the 
reasones  and  causes  of  our  doinges  the  which  now  ye  do  not  learn, 
but  by  report,  which  in  tyme  and  distaunce  encreaseth,  and  made 
of  them  which  favoreth  not  the  thing  ys  exaggerated  to  the  worse,  ye 
wold  peradventure  condiscend  your  self  and  be  in  all  poyntes  satis- 
fied as  at  this  present  many  bothe  of  Busshops  and  other  learned  men 
be,  which  at  the  first  did  miche  repyne,  fare  you  well.  From 
Greenwiche,  the  4th  of  June,  1549. 

Yor  lovyng  freende  if  you 

acknowledge  yor  dutie  to 
the  Ks.  Mate. 

E.  S." 


•9 

Such  a  letter  and  invitation  could  not,  surely,  have  been 
sent  to  Pole  if  the  first  reformed  Liturgy  had  not  bespoken 
itself  with  sufficient  plainness  to  be  Catholic  in  its  character 
and  language. 

(2)  Next,  Gardiner,  Bishop  of  Winchester,  who  may  be 
taken  as  a  fair  type  of  a  large  party  not  favourable  to  the 
Reformation,  did  nevertheless,  as  we  shall  see  hereafter,  testify 
to  the  fitness  of  most  of  what  was  done  and,  in  particular, 
frequently  quoted  the  new  Prayer  Baok  (whether  always 
effectively  or  not  is  another  question)  in  support  of  his  own 
Doctrinal  opinions  which  yet  were  vigorously  combated  by 
Cranmer  and  others. 

Now  it  is  important  to  notice  that  in  the  very  month  in 
which  Somerset's  letter  to  Pole  was  written,  Public  Disputa- 
tions were  held  in  the  two  Universities,  before  the  King's 
Visitors  and  Commissioners,  on  the  Eucharistic  controversy; 
and  moreover  that  in  those  Disputations  language  was  occa- 
sionally employed  by  the  Reforming  party  which  (if  it  stood 
alone  and  were  criticized  apart  from  the  Prayer  Book,  which 
they  professed  to  accept,  and  upon  which  some  of  them  had  been 
engaged)  would  certainly  favour  the  notion  that  they  held  a 
most  lax  and  indefinite  view  of  the  Real  Presence  :  yet  I 
think  it  will  appear  from  a  careful  examination  of  their 
arguments  and  a  generous  interpretation  of  their  words,  that 
their  great  anxiety  was — not  to  lend  themselves  in  any  degree 
to  an  apparent  support  of  that  doctrine  of  a  CARNAL  Presence 
which  was  then  sought  to  be  eradicated ;  and  that  this  accounts 
for  much  of  their  seemingly  contradictory  language.  In  saying 
this  I  am  neither  defending  it  nor  attempting  to  reconcile  it. 

First  of  all,  considering  his  public  position  and  his  relations 
to  the  English  Reformers  at  this  time,  it  will  be  well  to 
notice  Peter  Martyr's  Disputation  at  Oxford,  June  llth  to 
15th  1549. 

Foxe's  opinion  of  the  object  and  purport  of  P.  Martyr's 
discussion  is  shortly  stated  in  these  words  :  it  was,  he  says  : — 

" that  the  substance  of  bread  and  wine  was  not  changed 

in  the  Sacrament,  and  that  the  Body  and  Blood  of  Christ  were  not 
carnally  and  bodily  in  the  bread  and  wine,  but  united  to  the  same 
sacramentally." — Vol.  v.,  p.  800. 


10 

The  following  is  an  analysis  of  it. 

"  Peter  Martyr  being  called  by  the  king  to  the  public  reading  of 
the  Divinity  Lecture  in  Oxford,  amongst  his  other  learned  exercises 
did  set  up  in  the  public  schools  three  conclusions  of  Divinity,  to  be 
disputed  and  tried  by  argument ;  at  which  disputations  were  present 
the  King's  Visitors,  to  wit,  Henry,  Bishop  of  Lincoln ;  Dr.  Coxe, 
Chancellor  of  that  university ;  Dr.  Hains,  Dean  of  Exeter ;  Master 
Richard  Morison,  Esquire  ;  and  Christopher  Nevinson,  Doctor  of 
Civil  Law. 

"  The  conclusions  propounded  were  these  : — 

"  First.  *  In  the  Sacrament  of  Thanksgiving  there  is  no  transilb- 
StantiatiOll  of  Bread  and  Wine  into  the  Body  and  Blood  of  Christ. 

"  Secondly.  *  The  Body  and  Blood  of  Christ  be  not  carnally, 
or  corporally  In  the  Bread  and  Wine,  nor,  as  others  use  to  say, 
Under  the  kinds  of  bread  and  wine. 

"  Thirdly.     «  The  Body  and  Blood  of  Christ  be  united  to  bread 

and  wine  sacramentally. 

"  They  that  were  the  chief  Disputers  against  him  on  the  con- 
trary side  were,  Dr.  Tresham,  Dr.  Chedsey,  and  Morgan." 

From  "  The  Reasons  and  principal  Arguments  of  Peter 
Martyr,"  I  extract  the  following  : — 

"  The  argument  of  Peter  Martyr  upon  the  first  conclusion. 
After  quoting  Holy  Scripture,  he  says — 

"  Ergo.  We  also,  with  the  Scriptures,  ought  not  to  exclude 
bread  from  the  nature  of  the  Sacrament." 

Quoting  St.  Cyprian,  he  says — 

"  Ergo.  As  in  the  person  of  Christ,  so  in  the  Sacrament,  both 
the  natures  ought  still  to  remain." 

Quoting  Gelasius,  St.  Augustine,  and  Theodoret,  he  says 

"  Ergo.  Like  as  the  Body  of  Christ  remained  in  Him,  and  was 
not  cbanged  into  His  Divinity  ;  so  in  the  Sacrament,  the  bread  is 
not  changed  into  the  Body,  but  botll  the  Substances  remain 
whole."— Foxe,  Acts  and  Mon.  Vol.  vi.  p.  299. 

In  the  following  "Argument"  he  appears  to  contradict 
these  last  two  conclusions  : — 

"  The  words  of  the  Evangelist,  speaking  of  that  which  Christ 
took,  blessed,  brake,  and  gave,  do  import  it  to  be  bread,  and  nothing 
else  but  bread." 

Yet  his  conclusion  agrees  with  them  :  for  he  only  says 
"Ergo,  the  substance  of  bread  is  not  to  be  excluded  out  of  the 
Sacrament :"  (p.  300).  He  does  not  say  that  the  Body  and 
Blood  of  Christ  is  not  in  the  Sacrament. 


11 

"  Arguments  of  Peter  Martyr,  disputing  with  Martin  Chedsey 
upon  the  first  question. 

"  Every  Sacrament  consisteth  in  two  things,  that  is,  in  the  thing 
signifying,  and  the  thing  signified." 

He  contends  that  Transubstantiation  "  is  false," 

"  I.  First,  by  these  words  of  the  Scripture,  when  He  saith,  '  Do 
this  in  remembrance  of  Me/  forasmuch  as  remembrance  properly 
serveth  not  for  things  corporally  present,  but  for  things  rather 
being  absent,  [i.e.  corporally  absent.] 

"  II.  Secondly,  where  He  saith,  *  Until  I  come ;'  which  words 
were  vain  if  He  were  already  come  [i  e.  corporally]  by  consecra- 
tion. 

"  IV.  Furthermore,  whereas  the  Lord  biddeth  them  to  take  and 
eat,  it  is  evident  that  the  same  cannot  be  understood,  without  a 
trope,  forasmuch  as  He  cannot  be  eaten  and  chewed  with  teeth,  as 
we  use  properly,  in  eating  other  .meats,  to  do. 

"  The  second  cause  why  the  words  of  Christ,  '  This  is  My  Body,' 
cannot  be  literally  expounded  without  a  trope,  is  the  nature  of  a 
sacrament ;  whose  nature  and  property  is  to  bear  a  sign  or  significa- 
tion of  a  thing  to  be  remembered,  which  thing,  after  the  Substantial 
and  real  presence  is  absent 

"  The  third  cause  why  the  words  of  consecration  are  figuratively 
to  be  taken,  is  the  testimony  of  the  ancient  doctors. 

"Tertullian  saith,  'This  is  My  Body  ;'  that  is  to  say,  This  is  a 
figure  of  My  Body. 

"  Augustine  saith,  '  Christ  gave  a  figure  of  His  Body.'  Also  he 
saith,  '  He  did  not  doubt  to  say,  This  is  My  Body,  when  He  gave 
a  sign  of  His  Body.' 

"Jerome  saith, '  Christ  represented  unto  us  His  Body.' 

"  Augustine,  in  his  book,  '  De  Doctrina  Christiana,'  declareth 
expressly  that  this  speech  of  eating  the  Body  of  Christ,  is  a  figura- 
tive speech.' 

"  Ambrose  saith,  '  As  thou  hast  received  the  similitude  of  His, 
Death  ;  so  thou  drinkest  the  similitude  of  His  precious  Blood,'  " 

"  Argument. 

"The  Death  of  Christ  is  not  present  really  in  the  Sacrament, 
but  by  similitude. 

"  The  precious  Blood  of  Christ  is  present  in  the  Sacrament,  as 
His  death  is  present. 

"  Ergo.  The  precious  Blood  of  Christ  is  not  present  really  in  the 
Sacrament. 

"  The  minor  of  this  argument  is  proved  before  by  the  words  of 
Ambrose." 


"  The  argument  of  Peter  Martyr,  upon  the  Second  Conclusion. 

"  The  true  natural  body  of  Christ  is  placed  in  Heaven. 

"  The  true  natural  body  of  man  can  be  but  in  one  place  at  once, 
where  he  is. 

"  Ergo,  The  true  natural  Body  of  Christ  can  be  in  no  place  at 
once,  but  in  heaven  where  He  is. 

"The  major  is  plain  by  the  Scriptures." — St.  Mark  xvi.  19; 
St.  John  xii.  8.  and  xvi.  28  ;  St.  Matt.  xxiv.  23  ;  Acts  Hi.  21  ; 
Coloss.  iii.  1. 

"  The  minor,  likewise,  is  evident  by  St.  Austin,  who  speaking  of 
the  glorified  Body  of  Christ,  affirmeth  the  same  to  be  in  one  certain 
place,  '  Propter  veri  corpom  modum,'  that  is,  for  the  manner  of  a 
true  body.'* 

"  Argument. 

"  Every  true  natural  body  requireth  one  certain  place. 

"  Augustine  saith,  Christ's  Body,  is  a  true  natural  Body. 

"  Ergo,  Christ'sBody  requireth  one  certain  place." — p.  302. 

"  Argument. 

"  We  must  not  so  defend  the  Divinity  of  Christ,  that  we  destroy 
His  humanity. 

"  If  we  assign  to  the  Body  of  Christ  plurality  of  places,  we 
destroy  His  humanity. 

"  Ergo,  we  must  not  assign  to  the  body  of  Christ  plurality  of 
places." 

"Argument. 

"  If  Christ  had  given  His  Body  substantially  and  carnally  in  the 
supper,  then  was  that  Body  either  passible  or  impassible. 

"But  neither  can  you  say  that  body  to  be  passible  or  impassible, 
which  He  gave  at  supper. 

"  Ergo,  He  did  not  give  His  Body  substantially  and  carnally  at 
supper."" 

"  Argument. 

"  Bodies  organical,  without  quantity,  be  no  bodies. 

"  The  Pope's  Doctrine,  maketh  the  Body  of  Christ  in  the  Sacra- 
ment to  be  without  quantity. 

"  Ergo,  The  Pope's  Doctrine  maketh  the  Body  of  Christ  in  the 
Sacrament  to  be  no  body." — p.  303. 

Strype,  in  relating  this  Disputation,  quotes  P.  Martyr  as 
reporting  of  it  to  the  Archbishop,  thus:  — 

" '  That  his  doctrines  he  then  maintained  might  not  altogether 
square  with  Bucer's  judgment.  But  he  said  in  his  own  justification, 
that  he  granted  the  Body  of  Christ  was  present  to  us  by  faith, 

and  that  we  are  incorporated  into  Him  by  communication 

that  we  do  partake   of  the  matter  of  the  Sacrament,  namely,  the 
Body  and  Blood  of  Christ ;  but  he  meant  it  in  inind  and  faith 


13 

that  the  Holy  Ghost  is  efficacious  in  the  Sacrament,  by  virtue  of  the 

Lord's  institution.    But  that  which  he  especially  endeavoured  to 

assert  was,  that  they  mixed  not  the  Body  and  Blood  of  Christ  car- 
nally with  the  bread  and  wine  by  any  corporeal  Presence.  Nor 
yet  would  he  have  the  Sacrament  to  be  symbols  without  honour  and 
reverence.  Another  thing  he  asserted,  which  he  thought  might 
offend  Bucer,  was,  that  it  was  not  agreeable  to  the  Body  of  Christ, 
however  glorified,  to  be  in  many  places  at  once. — Strype's  Cranmer, 
Bk.  ii.,  c.  14. 

Next,  in  order  of  time,  we  come  to  the  Disputations  at 
Cambridge  on  the  Eucharist :  of  these  there  were  three,  con- 
ducted by  the  persons  named  in  Ridley's  "  Determination."* 

"  The  first  disputation  holden  at  Cambridge,  the  20th  day  of 
June,  A.D.  1549,  before  the  King's  Majesty's  Commissioners,  by  Dr. 
Madew  respondent,  .  .  .  ." 

In  his  Declaration  against  transubstantiation  he  says : — "  .  .  . 
some  papists  dream  and  fancy,  such  a  corporal,  real,  and  g^*OSS 
presence  of  Christ's  Body  in  the  Sacrament,  as  they  affirm  it 
to  be  there,  even  as  VClily  as  it  was  upon  the  Cross.  Indeed 
the  bread  is  changed  after  a  certain  manner  into  Christ's 
body  ;  for  Christ  gave  not  His  own  natural  Body  to  His  Disciples  at 
His  last  supper,  but  only  a  sign,  or  figure  thereof.  Christ's  Body  IS 
there  With  the  Bread  ;  our  senses  cannot  be  deceived  about  the  sub- 
stance of  bread,  but  they  do  judge  there  to  be  but  one  body,  that  is 
of  bread  :  ergo,  so  it  is.  Also  the  very  definition  of  a  Sacrament 

doth  plainly  repugn  unto  transubstantiation 

Now,  indeed,  there  be  two  manner  of  signs  ;  one  that  signifieth 
only,  the  other  that  doth  exhibit  the  thing  itself.  The  first  is 
applied  to  the  old  law  chiefly,  the  other  to  the  law  of  grace 

" Even  as  we  are  changed   into  Christ  by  receiving  the 

Sacrament,  so  the  bread  is  changed  into  the  Body  of  Christ.  But 
our  substance  is  not  changed  into  Christ's  substance.  Ergo,  the 
substance  of  the  bread  is  not  changed  into  Christ's  Body.  .... " — 
p.  307. 

One  of  the  Disputants,  Dr.  Glyn,  pressed  upon  Dr.  Madew 
that— 

"  St.  Austin  saith  thus,  '  Lo  no  man  eateth  of  that  bread,  except 
he  first  adore  and  worship  it.' 

"  Madew.  «  By  your  patience,  St.  Austin,  in  that  place,  speaking 
of  the  honouring  of  Christ's  Body  now  sitting  in  heaven.* 

"  Qlyn.  «  Yea,  master  doctor,  think  you  so  ?  And  why  not  also 
of  His  blessed  Body  in  the  Sacrament,  seeing  that  He  saith  It  is 

there  ? And  why  then  ought  we  not  to  honour  It  m  the 

Sacrament?  or  how  many  bodies  hath  Christ,  seeing  you  do  grant 
His  Body  in  Heaven  to  be  honoured,  but  not  his  Body  here  in  the 
Sacrament?' 

»  Seep.  18. 


14 

"  Madew.     «  Forsooth  He  hath  but  one  very  Body  and  no  more  j 

but  the  same  is  sacramentally  in  the  Sacrament,  and  substan- 
tially in  Heaven  :  here  by  faith  and  there  in  deed.'" — p.  810. 

Glyn  next  repeated  his  argument,  upon  which  Ridley,  then 
Bishop  of  Rochester,  said — 

" I  do  grant  unto  you,  master  opponent,  that  the  old 

ancient  fathers  do  record  and  witness  a  certain  honour  and  adora- 
tion to  be  due  unto  Christ's  Body,  but  they  speak  not  of  It  in 
the  Sacrament,  but  of  It  in  Heaven  at  the  right  hand  of  the  Father, 
as  holy  Crysostom  saith,  '  Honour  thou  It  and  then  eat  It:'  but  that 
honour  may  not  be  given  to  the  Outward  Sign,  but  to  the  Body  of 
Christ  itself  in  Heaven.-  For  that  Body  is  there  only  in  a  Sign 
Virtually,  by  grace,  in  the  exhibition  of  It  in  spirit,  effect,  and 
faith,  to  the  worthy  receiver  of  It.  For  we  receive  virtually  only 
Christ's  Body  in  the  Sacrament." 

"  Glyn.  '  How  then  if  it  please  your  good  Lordship,  doth  Bap- 
tism differ  from  this  Sacrament  ?  for  in  that,  we  receive  Christ  also 
by  grace  and  virtually.' 

"Rochester.  'Christ  is  present  after  another  sort  in  Baptism  than 
in  this  Sacrament ;  for  in  that,  He  purgeth  and  washeth  the  infant 
from  all  kind  of  sin,  but  here,  He  doth  feed  spiritually  the  receiver 
in  faith  with  all  the  merits  of  His  blessed  death  and  passion.  And 
yet  He  is  in  Heaven  still  really  and  substantially,  as  for  example : 
the  King's  Majesty,  our  Lord  and  Master,  is  but  in  one  place, 
wheresoever  that  his  royal  person  is  abiding  for  the  time ;  and  yet 
his  mighty  power  and  authority  is  everywhere  in  his  realms  and 
dominions  :  so  Christ's  real  Person  is  only  in  Heaven  substantially 
placed,  but  His  might  is  in  all  things  created  effectually  ;  for 
Christ's  Flesh  may  be  understood  for  the  power  or  inward  might 
of  His  Flesh.'"*— p.  311. 

"  Glyn.  t  Holy  St.  Ambrose  saith,  the  Body  there  made  ly  the 
mighty  power  of  God's  word,  is  the  Body  [taken]  of  the  Virgin 
Mary.'' 

"  Rochester.  '  That  is  to  say,  that  by  the  word  of  God  the  thing 
hath  a  being  that  it  had  not  before,  and  we  do  consecrate  the  body, 
that  we  may  receive  the  grace  and  power  of  the  Body  of  Christ  in 
Heaven  by  this  sacramental  body.' — p.  312. 

*'  Glyn.  '  So,  I  perceive  you  would  have  me  to  grant  that  the 
Sacrament  is  but  a  figure,  which  Theoplylact  doth  deny.' 

"  Rochester.  *  You  say  truth,  he  denieth  it  indeed  to  be  a 
figure,  but  he  meaneth  that  it  is  not  Only  a  figure."— p.  313. 

After  some   further  discussion  between  Glyn  and  Ridley, 

• 

*  Compare  with  this  argument  of  Ridley,  the  following  argument  on  the 
Roman  side:  — 

"  Weston.  Now  then  take  this  argument:  wheresover  God's  authority  is, 
there  is  Christ's  Body :  but  God's  authority  is  in  everyplace  :  Ergo.  What 
letteth  the  Body  of  Christ  to  he  in  everyplace  ?  " — Disputation  ivith  Cranmer  at 
Oxford,  April  14,  1563. 


15 

the  argument  was  taken  up  by  "  Master  Langdale"  who 
quoted  Erasmus  as  saying — 

"  The  Church  of  Christ  hath  determined,  very  lately,  transuhstan- 
tiation.  It  was  of  a  long  season  enough  to  believe  Christ's  Body 
to  be  either  under  the  bread  consecrated,  or  else  to  be  present  after 
any  other  manner." 

Madew  (accepting,  of  course,  Erasmus  as  an  authority, 
seeing  that  his  Paraphrase  on  the  Gospels  was  then  in  public 
use  in  the  Churches  by  the  King's  Injunctions  of  1547)  said 
in  reply :  — 

" it  is  most  constant  and  sure,  that  Erasmus  was  of  that 

mind  and  opinion,  that  it  was  enough  for  a  Christian  to  believe 
Christ's  Body  and  Blood  to  be  in  the  Sacrament,  in  what  manner  or 
condition  soever  it  were." — p.  314. 

Then  Langdale  asked — 

" whether  that  this  sentence  '  This  is  my  Body,'  be 

spoken  of  Christ  figuratively  or  not? 

"  Madew.  '  After  the  mind  of  the  common  gloss  of  Cyprian  and 
Origen,  it  is  so  taken  in  very  deed.' 

"  Langdale.     '  That  cannot  be,  by  your  patience  ;   for  it  is  taken 

there  substantially :  ergo,  not  figuratively. 

"  Madew.     '  I  deny  your  argument.' 

"  Langdale.  I  prove  my  argument  good,  thus  :  This  word 
substance  doth  plainly  repugn,  and  is  contrary  to,  this  word 
figure:  ergo,  Substantially  and  figuratively  do  also  repugn. 
Moreover,  I  ask  of  you,  whether  that  this  be  a  true  proposition  or 
not:  Bread  is  Christ s  Body.' 

"  Madew.     '  Yea,  forsooth  it  is  a  true  proposition.' 

"Langdale.  'Then  thus  to  you  :  Christ's  Body  was  given  for  us, 
but  you  say  that  bread  is  Christ's  Body :  ergo,  bread  was  given  fcr 
us.' 

"Rochester.  'Not  so,  sir,  for  your  former  proposition  is  of  double 
understanding.' 

"  Langdale.  '  Well,  yet  you,  master  doctor,  do  grant  that  Christ 
is  Substantially  in  the  Sacrament.' 

"  Madew.     '  No :   I  deny  that  I  said  so  ever. 

"Langdale.  'Yea,  do  you  so?  Well,  I  pass  not  thereupon 
greatly;  for  I  will  prove  it  by  another  means. — Christ  did  suffer  His 
most  glorious  passion  for  us  really  and  Substantially :  Ergo, 
He  is  also  in  the  Sacrament  Substantially.  The  argument  is  good, 
because  that  it  is  the  Same  here,  that  was  there  crucified  for  us  : 

howbeit  here  invisibly,  indeed  spiritually  and  sacramentally ; 

but  there  visibly,    and  after  a  mortal  and  most  bloody  manner.' 

"  Rochester.  '  Master  Langdale,  your  argument  doth  well  con- 
clude in  case  that  His  Body  were  here,  in  the  Sacrament,  after  such 
a  sort  as  it  was  when  He  was  betrayed.  But  that  is  not  so  ;  for  He 


1C 

was  betrayed  and  crucified  in  His  natural  Body,  Substantially  and 
really,  in  very  deed ;  but  in  the  Sacrament  he  is  not  so,  but 

spiritually  and  figuratively  only.' 

"  Langdale.  '  By  your  good  Lordship's  favour  that  is  not  so  ;  for 
He  is  there  not  figuratively,  but  verily  and  indeed,  by  the  power 
of  His  mighty  word  :  yea,  even  His  very  own  natural  Body,  under 
the  Sacrament  duly  performed  by  the  lawful  minister.'  " — p.  315. 

To  this  statement  Madew  and  Ridley  gravely  objected. 
In  reply  to  an  argument  of  " Master  Segewick"  another 
opponent,  Ridley  said : — 

"  I  do  grant  it  [the  Bread  of  the  Sacrament]  to  be  Christ's  true 
Body  and  Flesh,  by  a  property  of  the  nature  assumpted  to  the  God- 
head ;  yea,  and  we  do  really  eat  and  drink  his  Flesh  and  Blood  after 
a  certain  real  property," — p.  316. 

Then  they  proceeded  to  another  point,  which  was  thus 
stated  by  Segewick  : — 

"  Now,  as  touching  our  second  conclusion,  this  I  say  :  wheresoever, 
Christ  is  ;  there  is  a  sacrifice  propitiatory;  but,  in  the  Lord's  Supper 
is  Christ :  ergo,  in  the  Lord's  Supper  is  a  sacrifice  propitiatory." 

Madew.  "  Christ  is  not  offered  in  the  Lord's  Supper,  but  is  re- 
ceived spiritually." 

Segewick.  "  The  Priesthood  and  the  Sacrifice  be  correspondent 
together  ;  but  Christ's  Priesthood,  after  the  order  of  Melchizedeck, 
is  perpetual  ;  ergo,  also  so  is  His  Sacrifice. 

Rochester  "  Christ  is  a  Priest  for  ever  ;  that  is  to  say,  His  Priest- 
hood and  Sacrifice,  offered  once  for  all,  is  available  for  ever  ;  so  that 
no  other  shall  succeed  Him." 

Segewick.  "Where  there  is  no  Oblation,  there  is  no  Sacrifice  : 
ergo,  if  Christ  be  not  perpetually  offered,  there  is  no  perpetual  Sacri- 
fice. Item,  the  same  bloody  Sacrifice  of  Christ  upon  the  Cross  was 
the  very  fine  and  end  of  all  the  bloody  Sacrifices  figured  in  the  Law 
after  the  order  of  Aaron's  Priesthood.  Wherefore,  you  must  needs 
grant  that  He  offered  Himself  also,  at  His  last  Supper,  after  the 

order  of  Melchizedeck,  under  the  forms  of  Bread  and  Wine, 

or  else  you  must  show  the  Scripture  where  He  did  so,  which  I  can- 
not perceive  to  be  done  but  at  His  last  Supper  only,  after  an  un- 
bloody manner.  Item,  He  is  offered  for  the  remission  of  sins  daily  : 
ergo,  He  is  a  Sacrifice  propitiatory  still,  in  the  new  Law,  as  St. 
Augustine  saith,  expounding  these  words  of  the  Psalm,  '  Thou  hast 
not  willed  to  have  Sacrifice  and  Oblation,  but,'  &c. 

'*  Rochester.  "  St.  Cyprian  speaketh  much  like  that  sort,  where 
he  saith  thus,  <  It  is  the  Lord's  Passion,  which  we  do  offer,'  &c." — 
p.  317. 

In  "  The  second  Disputation  holdtn  at  Cambridge  the  24?th 
day  f>f  June,  1549,'*  Dr.  Glyn  commenced  with  a  Declaration 


ft 

upon  each  of  his  two  Conclusions  argued  at  the  former  meet- 
ing; upon  which  "Master  Perne"  said  to  him: — 

" You  left  transubstantiation,  and  endeavour  yourself  to 

prove  the  real  Presence  in  the  Sacrament :  whereas  we  deny 

nothing   less   than  His  Corporal  Presence,   or  the  absence  of  His 
SUJdstance  in  the  Bread." — p.  320. 

Grindal  then  followed,  and  argued  against  the  change  of 
the  substance  of  the  Bread,  that — 

"  If  it  be  the  real  and  substantial  Body  of  Christ,  because 
Christ  said  *  This  is  my  Body ;'  ergo,  because  the  Lord  said  '  I  will 
not  drink  of  the  fruit  of  this  vine/  and  Paul  calleth  it  Bread  after 
the  consecration,  it  is  therefore  Bread  and  Wine." — p.  322. 

A  little  after,  Grindal  remarked — 

"  Augustine  upon  the  thirty-third  psalm  saith,  '  Christ  bare  Him- 
self in  His  own  Hands,  after  a  sort  ;  not  indeed  or  truly,'  &c." 
—p.  324. 

Then  Gest  followed,  and  contended  against  a  change  of 
substance,  saying — 

"If  the  bread  be  changed,  it  is  made  the  [natural]  Body  of 
Christ;  but  that  is  not  so  ;  ergo,  it  is  not  changed." 

"  Glyn.     '  I  deny  your  minor.1 

"  Gest.     '  It  is  not  generate  or  begot : 

"  Ergo,  it  is  not  the  Body.' 

"  Glyn.  '  That  followeth  not ;  as  though  to  be  made,  and  to  be 
generate  or  begot,  were  all  one  thing  ;  or  as  though  there  were 
no  other  mutation  than  a  generation  :  and  so  you  impugn  a  thing 
that  you  know  not.  But  what  call  you  the  generation  ?  ' 

"Gest.  .  '  The  generation  is  the  production  of  the  accidents.' 

"  Glyn.     '  A  new  definition  of  a  new  philosopher.1 

"  Gest.  '  That  which  he  took  He  blessed  ;  that  which  He  blessed 
He  brake,  and  gave  it  unto  them  :  ergo,'  &c. 

"  Glyn.  l  Christ  took  bread,  brake  bread,  and  gave  His  Body, 
that  is  the  substance  of  His  Body:  saying,  This  is  my  Body.' 

"  Gest.  'The  Bread  is  not  changed  into  the'  Blood  of  Christ : 
ergo,  not  into  His  Body  either.' 

"  Glyn.     '  1  deny  your  antecedent.' 

"  Gest.     '  The  Master  of  the  sentences  saith  it.' 

"  Glyn.  You  understand  him  not ;  for  the  bread  is  changed  into 
the  Body  of  Christ  by  the  power  of  God's  word." 

"  Rocttester.  Ye  dream  of  a  real  presence  of  Christ's  Body  in 
the  Sacrament,  by  the  force  of  the  words  spoken  ;  which  the  Holy 
Scripture  doth  impugn." 

"  Gest.  If  there  were  any  transubstantiation,  the  accidents  should 
not  remain  still ;  for  they  have  no  matter  whereto  they  may  lean  or 


18 

cleave.   But  the  accidents  remain  not  themselves  alone  :  ergo,'  &c." 
—p.  325. 

In  "the  third  Disputation,  holden  at  Cambridge,  as 
before,"  Master  Perne,  having  made  his  Declaration  upon 
the  two  Conclusions,  said  in  his  argument  against  Parker 
(not  Matthew,  afterwards  Archbishop) — 

"  I  grant  unto  you  that  Christ  is  in  the  Sacrament  truly,  wholly, 
and  verily,  after  a  certain  property  and  manner  :  I  deny  not  His 
presence,  but  His  real  and  corporal  presence  I  utterly  deny  ;  for 
doubtless  His  true  and  natural  Body  is  in  Heaven,  and  not  in  the 
Sacrament :  notwithstanding  He  dwelleth  with  us,  and  in  us,  after 
a  certain  unity.  And  also  in  the  sixth  chapter  of  John,  He.  speaketh 
not  of  the  Flesh  of  Christ  crucified/  &c. 

"  Parker.  The  flesh  of  Christ  as  it  is  in  the  Sacrament,  is  quick 
and  giveth  life :  ergo,  His  real  and  substantial  flesh  is  in  the 
Sacrament." 

"  Rochester.      these  words  '  This  is  My  Body.'   are  meant 

thus  :  by  grace  it  is  My  true  Body,  but  not  My  fleshly  Body,  as 
some  of  you  suppose." — p.  329. 

In  reply  to  Master  Vavasor,  who  had  drawn  an  argument 
from  St.  Augustine,  in  Ps.  xcviii. — 

*'  Christ  of  the  earth  received  earth,  and  of  the  flesh  of  Mary  He 
received  flesh." 

Ridley  said:— 

"  I  acknowledge  not  His  real  substance  to  be  there ;  but  the 
property  of  His  substance." — p.  331. 

Supplementary  to  these  arguments  we  have  Ridley's  "De- 
termination concerning  the  Sacrament,  made  at  Cambridge, 
after  three  Disputations  held  there,  June  20,  1 549." 

The  King's  Commissioners. — Bishops  of  Rochester  [Ridley]  and 
Ely  [Goodrich],  Mr.  (afterwards  Sir  John)  Cheke,  Dr.  May, 
and  Thomas  Wendy,  Physician  to  the  King. 

1st  Disputation,  Dr.  Madew  v.  Dr.  Glyn,  Segewick,  Langdale, 

and  Young. 
2nd    Disputation,    Dr.    Glyn    v.    Grindal,    Perne,    Gest,  and 

Pilkington. 

3rd     Disputation,    Perne    v.    Parker,   Pollard,   Vavasor   and 
Young. 

He  decides  that  TRANSUBSTANTIATION  is  disproved,  as 
being 

1.     "  Clean  against  the  words  of  the  Scripture." — viz.  St.  Matt. 


19 

xxvi.  29  ;    St.  Mark  xiv.    25  ;  Exod.  xii.  46 ;    1   Cor.  xi.  24  ;    St. 
John  vi.  27,  28,  29,  50,  54,  55,  62,  63. 

2.  Against   "  The   Ancient   Fathers   a   thousand  years  past," — 
viz. ; — Dionysius   Pseudo   Areopagita  :    St.   Tgnat.  Ep.  ad  Philad. : 
St.  Iren.  cont.  Heres.  lib.  iv.  c.  18  :  Tert.  adv.  Marc,  iii :    St.  Cyp. 
ad.  Caecil.  i.   6  :    Theodoret :     Gelasius :    St.  Cyril :    St.  August. 
The  places  either  not  named  or  the  same  as  those  in  his  Treatise  on 
Transubstantiation. 

3.  Against  "the  nature  of  the  Sacrament,  which  consisteth  in 
three  things,  that  is,  Unity,  Nutrition,  and  Conversion." 

4.  Because  "  They  which  say  that  Christ  is  carnally  present  in 
the  Eucharist,  do  take  from  Him  the  verity  of  man's  nature. . . . 

5.  Contrary  to  the  Article  of  the   Creed,  "  He  ascended  into 
heaven,"  &c. 

And  from  these  premises,  together  with  Heb.  ix.  11,  26, 
£8 ;  x.  14,  and  St.  Aug.  ad  Bonif.  Ep.  23 :  and  Faust,  xx. 
c.  18,  he  holds  it  proved — 

"  That  there  is  no  other  [real  OF  carnal]  oblation  of  Christ .... 
but  that  which  was  once  made  upon  the  Cross." — Works.  Parker 
Society. — pp.  171-9. 

In  the  next  year,  1550,  Cranmer  published  his  "  Defence 
of  the  True  and  Catholic  Doctrine  of  the  Sacrament:"  to 
which  Bishop  Gardiner  having  made  a  reply,  the  Archbishop 
printed  his  "  Answer"  in  the  latter  part  of  1551  :  as  his 
original  work  and  Bishop  Gardiner's  criticims  are  sub- 
stantially comprised  in  Cranmer's  "  Answer  "  it  is  desirable 
to  extract  a  few  passages  from  it,  both  as  serving  to  shew  ( 1 ) 
The  nature  of  the  controversy  with  Gardiner  ;  (2)  The 
continuous  identity  of  the  Archbishop's  statements  touching 
the  PHYSICAL  Presence  in  the  Sacrament ;  and  (3)  The  occa- 
sional convergence  of  the  two  Prelates'  views  on  points  which 
are  involved  in  the  terms  of  the  Declaration  on  Kneeling  at 
the  Sacrament. 

It  is  true,  indeed,  that,  in  both  cases,  it  is  often  most 
difficult  to  gain  a  clear  notion  of  what  the  respective  writers 
maintain ;  and  to  determine  how  far  they  are  consistent  with 
themselves  :  yet  if  this  is  more  especially  the  case  with 
Cranmer,  from  whatever  cause,  he  has  furnished  certain  keys 
to  this  controversial  work  of  his.  For  in  his  "Preface  to 
the  reader,"  he  thinks  "it  good.. to  admonish  [him]  of 
certain  words  and  kinds  of  speeches  which,"  as  he  says,  "  I 


20 

do  use  sometimes  in  tins  mine  answer..  .  .lest  in  mistaking 
thou  do  as  it  were  stumble  at  them." 
Thus  he  says  :  — 

"This  word  '  Sacrament '  I  do  sometimes  use  (as  it  is  many 
times  taken  among  writers  and  holy  doctors)  for  the  sacramental 
bread,  water,  or  wine  ;  as  when  they  say  that,  sacramentum  est  sacrce 
rei  signum,  (  a  Sacrament  is  the  sign  of  an  holy  thing.'  But  where 
I  use  to  speak  sometimes  (as  the  old  authors  do)  that  Christ  is  in  the 
Sacraments,  I  mean  the  same  as  they  did  understand  the  matter  ^ 
that  is  to  say,  not  of  Christ's  carnal  Presence  in  the  outward  Sacra- 
ment, but  sometimes  of  His  sacramental  presence.  And  sometime 
by  this  word  *  Sacrament :'  I  mean  the  whole  ministration  and 
receiving  the  Sacraments " —  Works,  Parker  Society,  vol.  i.  p.  3. 

It  may  be  a  fit  introduction  to  any  extracts  from  this 
"  Answer"  and  also  a  legitimate  comment  upon  them  where 
of  doubtful  meaning,  to  notice  Cranmer's  estimate  of  Bertram 
whose  Book  I  have  already  alluded  to  in  connection  with  the 
Archbishop  :  thus  in  reply  to  Gardiner  he  observes  r — 

"  And  as  for  Bertram,  he  did  nothing  else  but,  at  the  request  of 
King  Charles,  set  out  the  true  doctrine  of  the  Holy  Catholic 
Church,  from  Christ  unto  his  time,  concerning  the  Sacrament. 
And  I  never  heard  nor  read  any  man  that  condemned  Bertram 
before  this  time  :  and  therefore  I  can  take  no  hindrance,  but  a  great 
advantage  at  his  hands :  for  all  men  that  hitherto  have  written  of 
Bertram,  have  much  commended  him.  And  seeing  that  he  wrote 
of  this  Sacrament  at  King  Charles's  request,  it  is  not  like  that  he 
would  write  against  the  received  Doctrine  of  the  Church  in  those 
days.  And  if  he  had,  it  is  without  all  doubt  that  some  learned  man, 
either  in  his  time  or  sithence,  would  have  written  against  him,  or  at 
the  least  not  have  commended  him  so  much  as  they  have  done."* — 
p.  14,  see  also  p.  77. 

The  following  are  some  extracts  from  Cranmer's  "Answer," 
they  are  but  a  few  out  of  many  passages  to  the  like  purport. 

(I)  "...  .as  He  giveth  the  bread  to  be  eaten  with  our  mouths,  so 
giveth  He  His  Tery  Body  to  be  eaten  with  our  faith.  And  therefore 
I  say,  that  Christ  giveth  Himself  truly  to  be  eaten,  chewed  and 
digested  ;  but  all  is  spiritually  with  faitli,  not  with  mouth.  And 
yet  you  would  bear  me  in  hand,  that  I  say  that  thing  which  I  say 
not :  that  is  to  say  that  Christ  did  not  give  His  Body,  but  the  figure 
of  His  Body."— p.  15. 

"And  therefore  to  answer  you  plainly,  the  same  flesh  that  was 
given  in  Christ's  last  supper,  was  given  also  upon  the  Cross,  and  is 
given  daily  in  the  ministration  of  the  Sacrament.  But  although 

*  Compare  the  Bp.  of  St.  Davids'  remarks  on  Mr.  Freeman's  opinion  of  Ber- 
tram's views,  in  his  charge  of  1857,  Appendix  B.  p.  118. 


it  be  one  thing,  yet  it  was  diversely  given.  For  upon  the  Cross 
Christ  was  carnally  given  to  suffer  and  to  die  ;  at  His  last  supper 
he  was  spiritually  given  in  a  promise  of  His  death ;  and  in  the 
Sacrament  He  is  daily  given  in  remembrance  of  His  death.  And 
yet  it  is  all  but  one  Christ  that  was  promised  to  die,  that  died  indeed, 
and  whose  death  is  remembered  ;  that  is  to  say,  the  very  Same 
Christ,  the  eternal  Word  that  was  made  flesh.  And  the  same  flesh 
was  also  given  to  be  spiritually  eaten,  and  was  eaten  in  deed,  before 
His  supper,  yea,  and  before  His  incarnation  also.  Of  which 
eating,  and  not  of  sacramental  eating,  He  spake  in  the  sixth  of 
John  :  "  My  flesh  is  very  meat,  and  My  blood  is  very  drink.  He 
that  eateth  My  flesh,  and  drinketh  My  blood,  dwelleth  in  me,  and  I 
in  him." — p.  24. 

"  And,  although   Christ  in  His  human  nature,  substantially, 

really,  corporally,  naturally,  and  sensibly,  be  present  with  His 

Father  in  heaven,  yet  sacrahieiltally  and  Spiritually  He  is  here 
present.  For  in  water,  bread,  and  wine,  he  is  present,  as  in  signs 
and  sacraments ;  but  He  is  indeed  spiritually  in  those  faithful, 
Christian  people,  which  according  to  Christ's  ordinance  be  baptized, 
or  receive  the  Holy  Communion,  or  unfeignedly  believe  in  him. ." 
"  The  papists'  say,  that  evil  and  ungodly  men  receive  in  this 
Sacrament  the  very  body  and  blood  of  Christ,  and  eat  and  drink 
the  selfsame  thing  that  the  good  and  godly  men  do.  But  the  truth 
of  God's  word  is  contrary,  that  all  those  that  be  godly  members  of 
Christ,  as  they  corporally  eat  the  bread  and  drink  the  wine,  so 
Spiritually  they  eat  and  drink  Christ's  very  flesh  and  blood.  And 
as  for  the  wicked  members  of  the  devil,  they  eat  the  sacramental 
bread,  and  drink  the  sacramental  wine,  but  they  do  not  spiritually 
eat  Christ's  flesh r  nor  drink  His  blood,  but  they  eat  and  drink  their 
own  damnation." — p.  47. 

Gardiner  had  said,  in  reply  to  Cranmer's  "Defence,"  that 
it  was  not  true  to  charge  his  side  with  holding. — 

" that  Christ  is  in  the  bread  and  wine,  but  they  agree  in 

form  of  teaching  with  that  the  Church  of  England  teacheth  at  this 
day,  in  the  distribution  of  the  Holy  Communion,  in  that  it  is  there 
said,  the  Body  and  Blood  of  Christ  to  be  under  the  form  of  bread 
and  wine. — p.  51. 

To  this  Cranmer  rejoins  truly  enough  thus,  for  the  phrase 
occurred  only  as  a  notice,  at  the  end  of  the  First  Book  of 
Homilies,  of  an  intended  Homily;  though  indeed  it  was  the 
alleged  physical  statement  which  he  was  denying  : — 

"  And  as  concerning  the  form  of  doctrine  used  in  this  Church  of 
England  in  the  Holy  Communion,  that  the  body  and  blood  of 
Christ  be  [i.e.  carnally]  under  the  form  of  bread  and  wine,  when 
you  shall  shew  the  place  where  this  farm  of  words  is  expressed,  then 
shall  you  purge  yourself  of  that,  which  in  the  meantime  I  take  to  be 
a  plain  untruth." — p.  53. 


"  And  how  sure  be  you  that  Christ  is  in  substance  present 
because  He  is  truly  present  ?  Are  you  assured  that  this  your 
doctrine  agreeth  with  God's  word  ?  Doth  not  God's  word  teach  a 
tme  presence  of  Christ  in  spirit,  where  He  is  not  present  in  His 
Corporal  substance  ?  As  when  He  saith:  "  Where  two  or  three 
be  gathered  together  in  My  name,  there  am  I  in  the  midst  of  them." 
And  also  when  He  saith  :  "  I  shall  be  with  you  till  the  end  of  the 
world."  Was  it  not  a  true  presence  that  Christ  in  these  places 
promised  ?  And  yet  can  you  not  of  this  true  presence  gather  such 
a  corporal  presence  of  the  substance  of  Christ's  manllOOd,  as  you 
unlearnedly,  contrary  to  the  scriptures,  go  about  to  prove  in  the 
Sacrament  ?  For  when  Christ  said,  *  This  is  My  body,'  it  was  bread 
which  is  called  His  body  in  a  figurative  speech,  as  all  old  authors 
teach,  and  as  I  have  proved  in  my  third  book,  the  eighth  and  eleventh 
chapters.  And  the  manner  how  Christ  carried  Himself  in  His  own 
hands,  St.  Augustine  declareth  it  to  be  figuratively." — p.  61. 

"  They  say  that  Christ  is  really  and  corporally  in  the  sacra- 
mental bread  being  reserved,  so  long  as  the  form  of  bread  remaineth, 
although  it  be  an  whole  year  and  more ;  but  after  the  receiving  thereof, 
He  flieth  up  from  the  receiver  into  heaven,  as  soon  as  the  bread  is 
chewed  in  the  mouth  or  digested  in  the  stomach.  But  we  say,  that 
after  what  manner  Christ  is  received  of  us,  in  the  same  wise  He 
remaineth  in  us,  so  long  as  we  remain  the  members  of  Christ." — p.  61. 

"  And  as  for  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer,  although  it  say,  that  in 
each  part  of  the  bread  broken  is  received  the  whole  body  of  Christ 
yet  it  saith  not  so  of  the  parts  unbroken,  nor  yet  of  the  parts  or 
whole  reserved,  as  the  papists  teach.  But,  as  in  Baptism  we  receive 
the  Holy  Ghost,  and  put  Christ  upon  us,  as  well  if  we  be  christened 
in  one  dish  full  of  water  taken  out  of  the  font,  as  if  we  were  chris- 
tened in  the  whole  font  or  river  ;  so  we  be  as  truly  fed,  refreshed, 
and  comforted  by  Christ,  receiving  a  piece  of  bread  at  the  Lord's 
holy  table,  as  if  we  did  eat  an  whole  loaf.  For,  as  in  every  part  of 
the  water  in  baptism  is  whole  Christ  and  the  Holy  Spirit,  sacramen- 
tally,  so  be  they  in  every  part  of  the  bread  broken,  but  not  COr- 
porally  and  naturally,  as  the  papists  teach." — p.  64. 

14  Who  is  so  ignorant  that  hath  read  anything  at  all,  but  he  knoweth 
that  distinction  of  three  eatings  ?  But  no  man  that  is  of  learning 
and  judgment,  understandeth  the  three  diverse  eatings  in  such  sort  as 
you  do,  but  after  this  manner  ;  that  some  eat  only  the  Sacrament  of 
Christ's  Body,  but  not  the  very  Body  itself :  some  eat  His  Body, 
and  not  the  Sacrament :  and  some  eat  the  Sacrament  and  Body  both 
together.  The  Sacrament  (that  is  to  say,  the  Bread,)  is  COr- 
porally  eaten  and  chewed  with  the  teeth  in  the  mouth :  the  very 
Body  is  eaten  and  chewed  with  faith  in  the  Spirit.  Ungodly  men, 
when  they  receive  the  Sacrament,  they  chew  in  their  mouths,  like 

unto  Judas,  the  sacramental  bread,  but  they  eat  not  the  celes- 
tial Bread,  which  is  Christ.  Faithful  Christian*  people,  such  as  be 
Christ's  true  disciples,  continually  from  time  to  time  record  in  their 
minds  the  beneficial  death  of  our  Saviour  Christ,  chewing  it  by 


23 

faith  in  the  cud  of  their  spirit,  and  digesting  it  in  their  hearts,  feed- 
ing and  comforting  themselves  with  that  heavenly  meat,  although 
they  daily  receive  not  the  Sacrament  thereof;  and  so  they  eat 
Christ's  Body  spiritually,  although  not  the  Sacrament  thereof.  But 
when  such  men,  for  their  more  comfort  and  confirmation  of  eternal 
life,  given  unto  them  by  Christ's  death,  come  unto  the  Lord's  holy 
table,  then,  as  before  they  fed  spiritually  upon  Christ,  so  now  they 
feed  corporally  also  upon  the  sacramental  bread  :  by  which  sacramen- 
tal feeding  in  Christ's  promises,  their  former  spiritual  feeding  is  in- 
creased, and  they  grow  and  wax  continually  more  strong  in  Christ, 
until,  at  the  last,  they  shall  come  to  the  full  measure  and  perfection 
in  Christ.  This  is  the  teaching  of  the  true  catholic  church,  as  it  is 
taught  by  God's  word.  And,  therefore  St.  Paul,  speaking  of  them 
that  unworthily  eat,  saith,  that  they  eat  the  bread,  but  not  that  they 
eat  the  body  of  Christ,  but  their  own  damnation. ..... ." — p.  71. 

"  The  papists  say,  that  the  body  of  Christ  that  is  in  the  Sacra- 
ment, hath  His  own  proper  form  and  quantity.  We  say,  that  the 
body  of  Christ  hath  not  His  proper  form  and  quantity,  neither  in 
the  Sacrament,  nor  in  them  that  receive  the  Sacrament ;  but  is  in  the 
Sacrament  sacramentally,  and  in  the  worthy  receivers  Spiritually, 
without  the  proper  form  and  quantity  of  His  body " — p.  72 

"  I  never  said  that  Christ  is  utterly  absent,  but  I  ever  affirmed 
that  He  is  truly  and  Spiritually  present,  and  truly  and  spiritually 
exhibited  unto  the  godly  receivers  ;  but  corporally  He  is  neither  in 
the  receivers,  nor  in  or  under  the  forms  of  bread  or  wine,  as  you  do 
teach  clearly  without  the  consent  of  master  Bucer  [whom  Gardiner 
had  quoted]  whowriteth  no  such  thing." — p.  127. 

"  As  for  the  real  presence  of  Christ  in  the  Sacrament,  I  grant 
that  He  is  really  present  after  such  sort  as  you  expound  really  in 
this  place,  that  is  to  say,  in  deed,  and  yet  but  spiritually.  For  you 
say  yourself,  that  He  is  but  after  a  spiritual  manner  there,  and  so  is 
He  spiritually  honoured,  as  St.  Augustine  saith." — p.  127. 

"  For  my  doctrine  is,  that  the  very  body  of  Christ,  which  was 
born  of  the  Virgin  Mary,  and  suffered  for  our  sins,  giving  us  life 
by  His  death,  the  same  Jesus,  as  concerning  His  corporal  presence, 
is  taken  from  us,  and  sitteth  at  the  right  hand  of  His  Father ;  and 
yet  is  He  by  faith  spiritually  present  with  us,  and  is  our  spiritual 
food  and  nourishment,  and  sitteth  in  the  midst  of  all  them  that  be 
gathered  together  in  His  name.  And  this  feeding  is  a  Spiritual 
feeding,  and  an  heavenly  feeding,  far  passing  all  corporal  and  car- 
nal feeding;  and  therefore  there  is  a  true  presence  and  a  true 
feeding  in  deed,  and  not  *  in  a  figure  only,  or  not  at  all,'  as  you 
most  untruly  report  my  saying  to  be.  This  is  the  true  under- 
standing of  the  true  presence,  receiving  and  feeding  upon  the  Body 
of  our  Saviour  Christ ;  and  not,  as  you  deprave  the  meaning  and 
true  sense  thereof,  that  the  receiving  of  Christ  truly  and  verily  is 
the  receiving  corporally  with  the  mouth  Corporal,  or  that  the 
Spiritual  receiving  is  to  receive  Christ  Ollly  by  His  Divine  Nature, 
which  thing  I  never  said  nor  meant.". p.  185. 

•<  ....  what  made  the  people  to    run  from    their   seats    to    the 


altar,  and  from  altar  to  altar,  and  from  sacring  (as  they  called  it)  to 
sacring,  peeping,  tooting,  and  gazing  at  that  thing  which  the  Priest 
held  up  in  his  hands,  if  they  thought  not  to  honour  that  thing 
which  they  saw  ?  What  moved  the  priests  to  lift  up  the  Sacrament 
so  high  over  their  heads  ;  or  the  people  to  cry  to  the  priest,  '  Hold 
up !  hold  up  ! '  and  one  man  to  say  to  another,  (  Stoop  down  before ;' 
or  to  say,  '  This  day  have  I  seen  my  Maker  ; '  and,  *  I  cannot  be 
quiet,  except  I  see  my  Maker  once  a  day  ?'  What  was  the  cause 
of  all  these,  and  that  as  well  the  priest  as  the  people  so  devoutly 
did  knock  and  kneel  at  every  sight  of  the  Sacrament,  but  that  they 
worshipped  that  visible  tiling*  which  they  saw  with  their  eyes,  and 
took  it  for  very  God  ?  For  if  they  worshipped  in  spirit  only  Christ 
sitting  in  heaven  with  His  Father,  what  needed  they  to  remove  out 
of  their  seats  to  toot  and  gaze,  as  the  Apostles  did  after  Christ,  when 
He  was  gone  up  into  heaven  ?  If  they  worshipped  nothing  that  they 
saw  ;  why  did  they  rise  up  to  see  ?  Doubtless,  many  of  the  simple 
people  worshipped  that  thing  which  they  saw  with  their  eyes. 

"And  although  the  subtle  papists  do  colour  and  cloke  the 
matter  never  so  finely,  saying  that  they  worship  not  the  sacraments 
which  they  see  with  their  eyes,  but  that  thing  which  they  believe 
with  their  faith  to  be  really  and  corporally  in  the  sacraments  ;  yet 
why  do  they  run  from  place  to  place,  to  gaze  at  the  things  which 
they  see,  if  they  worship  them  not,  giving  thereby  occasion  to  them 
that  be  ignorant  to  worship  that  which  they  see  ?  Why  do  they  not 
rather  quietly  sit  still  in  their  seats,  and  move  the  people  to  do  the 
like,  worshipping  God  in  heart,  and  in  spirit,  than  to  gad  about 
from  place  to  place  to  see  that  thing,  which  they  confess  themselves 
is  not  to  be  worshipped  ? 

"  And  yet,  to  eschew  one  inconvenience,  (that  is  to  say  the  wor- 
shipping of  the  sacrament,)  they  fall  into  another  as  evil,  and  wor- 
ship nothing  there  at  all.  For  they  worship  that  thing,  (as  they 
say)  which  is  really  and  corporally,  and  yet  invisibly  present 
under  the  kinds  of  bread  and  wine,  which  (as  before  is  expressed 
and  proved)  is  utterly  nothing.  And  so  they  give  unto  the  ignorant 
occasion  to  worship  bread  and  wine,  and  they  themselves  worship 
nothing  there  at  all. — p.  229. 

"  And  where  you  say  that  'it  were  not  welF  to  worship  Christ  in 
the  Sacrament,  if  nothing  be  there  (as  you  say  I  teach,)  if  you 
mean  that  Christ  cannot  be  worshipped  but  where  He  is  corporally 
present,  (as  you  must  needs  mean  if  your  reason  should  be  to 
purpose,)  then  it  followeth  of  your  saying,  that  we  may  not  worship 
Christ  in  baptism,  in  the  fields,  in  private  houses,  nor  in  no  place 
else  where  Christ  is  not  corporally  and  naturally  present,  But 
the  true  teaching  of  the  holy  Catholic  Church  is,  that  although 
Christ,  as  concerning  His  corporal  presence,  be  continually  re- 
sident in  heaven,  yet  He  is  to  be  worshipped  not  only  there,  but 
here  in  earth  also,  of  all  faithful  people,  at  all  times,  in  all  places, 
and  in  all  their  works. 

"  Hear  now  what  followeth  further  in  my  book  : 

"  But  the  papists,  for  their  own  commodity  to  keep  the  people  still 


25 

in  idolatry,  do  often  allege  a  certain  place  of  St.  Augustine  upon 
the  Psalms,  where  he  saith,  that  '  no  man  doth  eat  the  flesh  of 
Christ,  except  he  first  worship  it,'  and  that  *  we  do  not  offend  in 
worshipping  thereof,  but  we  should  offend  if  we  should  not  worship 
it.' 

"  That  is  true  which  St.  Augustine  saith  in  this  place.  For  who 
is  he  that  professeth  Christ,  and  is  spiritually  fed  and  nourished  with 
His  flesh  and  blood,  but  he  will  honour  and  worship  Him,  sitting 
at  the  right  hand  of  His  Father,  and  render  unto  Him  from  the 
bottom  of  his  heart,  all  laud,  praise,  and  thanks  for  His  merciful 
redemption  ?" — p.  230. 

"  These  words  of  St.  Augustine,  with  the  other  before  recited,  do 
express  his  mind  plainly,  that  Christ  is  not  otherwise  to  be  eaten 
than  spiritually,  (which  spiritual  eating  requireth  no  corporal 
presence)  and  that  he  intended  not  to  teach  here  any  adoration, 
either  of  the  Visible  sacraments  or  of  any  thing  that  is  corporally 
in  them.  For  indeed  there  is  nothing  really  and  corporally  in 
the  bread  to  be  worshipped,  although  the  papists  say  that  Christ  is 
[corporally]  in  every  consecrated  bread." — p.  231. 

"  But  this  doctrine,  which  the  holy  doctors  do  teach,  is  agreeable 
to  holy  scripture,  necessary  for  all  Christian  persons  to  believe 
for  their  everlasting  salvation,  and  profitable  for  their  spiritual  com- 
fort in  this  present  life  ;  that  is  to  say,  that  the  sacrament  of  Christ's 
body  and  blood  in  the  natures  and  substances  of  bread  and  wine 
is  distributed  unto  all  men,  both  good  and  evil  which  receive  it,  and 
yet  that  only  faithful  persons  do  receive  spiritually  by  faith  the 
Very  body  and  blood  of  our  Saviour  Christ.  So  that  Christ's  natu- 
ral body  is  not  in  the  sacrament  really,  Substantially,  and  COr- 
porally,  but  only  by  representation  ami  signification,  and  in  His  lively 
members  by  spiritual  and  effectual  operation.'' — p.  283. 

"  And  howsoever  the  body  and  blood  of  our  Saviour  Christ  be 
there  present,  they  may  as  well  be  present  there  with  the  substance 
of  bread  and  wine,  as  with  the  accidents  of  the  same,  as  the 
school  authors  do  confess  themselves,  and  it  shall  be  well 
proved,  if  the  adversaries  will  deny  it.  Thus  you  see  the  strongest 
arguments  of  the  papists  answered  unto,  and  the  chief  foundation 
whereupon  they  build  their  error  of  traiLSllbstailtiatioil  utterly 
subverted  and  overthrown." — p.  304. 

"  And  where  you  allege,  that  in  the  book  of  Common  Prayer  it  is 
set  forth,  how  in  each  part  of  what  is  broken  of  the  consecrated 
bread  is  the  whole  body  of  our  Saviour  Christ,  what  could  you 
have  alleged  more  against  yourself  ?  For  if  the  consecrated  bread 
be  broken  in  parts,  how  can  you  '  answer  truly  by  faith,  as  a 
believing  man,'  which  answer  you  make  straiglitways  alter,  that,1 
*  that  which  is  broken  is  no  bread  ?'  And  if  you  would  answer,  as 
you  be  wont  to  do,  that  the  accidents  of  bread  be  called  bread,  yet 
that  collusion  will  not  serve  you  in  this  place.  For  seeing  that  this 
place  speaketh  of  consecrated  bread,  answer  me  to  this,  whether 


26 

the  substance  or  accidents  be  consecrated  ?  And  if  you  say  the 
accidents,  then  for  as  much  as  consecration,  by  your  doctrine,  is 
conversion,  it  must  follow  that  the  accidents  of  bread  be  converted, 
and  not  the  substance  ;  and  so  should  you  call  it  transaccidentation, 
and  not  transubstantiation  ;  and  if  you  say,  that  the  substance  of 
bread  is  consecrated,  then  forasmuch  as  that  which  is  consecrated  is 
divided  into  parts,  and  in  every  part  is  the  whole  body  of  Christ,  you 
must  confess  that  the  substance  of  bread  remaineth  with  the  parts 
thereof,  wherein  is  received  the  body  of  Christ." — p.  327. 

Other  passages  of  a  kindred  character  will  be  found  at  pp. 
22,  47,  73,  79,  112,  188,  190,  227,  228,  366,  and  elsewhere 
throughout  the  volume. 

Gardiner  (according  to  the  custom  of  those  times,  pursued 
by  both  sides  alike,  towards  their  opponents,  when  they  had 
the  power,)  was  now  in  prison,  on  charges  such  as  were  not 
uncommon  in  that  age,  and  which  may,  perhaps,  be  best  de- 
scribed as  politico-ecclesiastical  nonconformity :  his  several  Ex- 
aminations show  what  I  have  already  remarked — that  he  was 
of  a  numerous  party  in  those  days  who  (while  they  had  been 
more  or  less  averse,  on  various  grounds,  from  helping  on 
the  changes  which  had  taken  place)  yet  acquiesced  in  the  ec- 
clesiastical arrangements,  with  a  good  or  a  had  grace,  content 
to  think  or  believe  that  they  were  comprehensive  enough  to 
include  their  faith  and  practice. 

This  Prelate  had  already  in  his  sermon  before  the  King  on 
the  Feast  of  St.  Peter,  June  29,  1548,  expressed  his  approval 
of  the  Act  and  Proclamation  already  mentioned,  enforcing 
Communion  in  both  kinds,  and  condemning  the  irreverent 
talkers  of  the  Sacrament :  morover,  he  added  "  That  if 
Chantries  were  abused  hy  applying  the  Mass  for  the  satisfac- 
tion of  sin,  or  to  bring  men  to  Heaven,  or  to  take  away  sin, 
or  to  make  men,  of  wicked — just,  I  like  the  Act  [that  sup- 
pressed them]  well."  And  again,  "  I  like  well  the  rest  of 
the  King's  Majesty's  proceedings  concerning  the  Sacrament." 
-—Foxe,  vol.  vi.  pp.  89  and  92. 

In  "The  4th  Session  against  him,  Jan.  8,  1550-1,  in  his 
'  Long  Matter  Justificatory,'  Art.  Ixiv.  we  read  :— 

"...  .The  said  Bishop  then  told  them  why  he  liked  the  said  book, 
and  noted  unto  them  how,  notwithstanding  the  alteration,  yet 
touching  the  truth  of  the  very  presence  of  Christ's  most  precious 
Body  and  Blood  in  the  Sacrament,  there  was  as  much  spoken  in 
that  book  as  might  be  desired ;  and  that  although  the  elevation  was 


27 

taken  away,  yet  the  alteration  in  one  special  place,  was  indeed 
reserved  :  and  showed  it  them,  adding,  it  must  needs  be  so  ;  affirming 
also,  that  there  was  never  more  spoken  for  the  sacrament  than  in 
that  book,  wherewith  might  be  confuted  all  that  spoke  against  it,  if 
they  would  take  it  for  authority." — p.  114,  see  also  pp.  169,  200, 
201,  203,  204,  and  322,  for  the  confirmatory  testimony  of  the  various 
witnesses  as  given  in  the  several  sessions. 

In  the  9th  Session,  Jan.  21,  1550-1,  among  the  "  Articles, 
additional  exhibited  by  Gardiner,"  he  declares  : — 

"  First,  that  the  Bishop  of  London  that  now  is  [Ridley],  then 
being  Bishop  of  Rochester,  did  openly  in  his  sermon  made  at  Paul's 
Cross,  in  the  month  of  November  or  December,  or  thereabouts,  in 
the  first  year  of  the  King's  Majesty's  reign*  that  now  is,  very 
earnestly  and  vehemently  preach  and  teach  the  true  presence  of 
Christ's  most  Precious  Body  to  be  ill  the  Sacrament  of  the  Altar. 

"  Item,  That  Dr.  Redman,  in  a  sermon  which  he  preached  before 
the  King's  Majesty  in  Lent,  the  second  year  of  his  Majesty's  reign, 
did  preach  and  teach  to  be  believed  for  the  true  Catholic  Faith, 
that  the  true  presence  of  Christ's  Body  and  Blood  was  in  the 
Sacrament  of  the  Altar. 

"  Item,  That  my  Lord  Archbishop  of  Canterbury,  about  the  time 
that  the  Bishop  of  Winchester  aforesaid  [viz.  himself]  preached  a 
sermon  on  St.  Peter's  Day,  at  Westminster,  before  the  King's  Ma- 
jesty, in  a  booke  by  him  translated,  called  Catechism,f  did  affirm, 
publish,  and  set  forth,  the  true  presence  of  Christ's  most  Precious 
Body  and  Blood  to  be  in  the  Sacrament  of  the  Altar " — p.  125. 

The  Articles  also  contain  similar  statements  as  to  others. 

Again,  in  the  20th  Session,  Feb.  3, 1550-1,  ({ John  White" 
Warden  of  Winchester,  being  "  sworn  and  examined"  before 
the  King's  Commissioners,  deposed  concerning  the  37th  Arti- 
cle, in  which  Gardiner  had  pleaded  that  he  had  not  infringed 
any  authorized  prohibitions  by  preaching  of  "  the  very  Pre- 
sence of  Christ's  Body  in  the  Sacrament." 

*'  ....  that  ever  since  his  time,  that  doctrine  of  the  Presence  of 
Christ  in  the  Sacrament  hath  been  received,  acknowledged,  and 
agreed  upon,  by  the  whole  Clergy  and  temporalty  learned  of  this 
Realm,  and  by  Acts  of  Parliament  and  synods  established,  and  by 
the  Prelates  and  other  learned  men  set  forth  in  books  and  open 
sermons,  until  within  two  years  since  [i.  e.  after  Edward's  First 
Book  came  into  use],  or  thereabout,  one  Peter  Martyr,  in  Oxford, 
in  his  Lectures  (as  this  deponent  hath  heard  say),  called  the  thing 
again  in  question  ;  whereupon  ensued  contention,  and  afterwards  dis- 
putation  p.  24.  See  also  other  testimonies  in  pp.  222,  225,  226* 

231,  and  239. 

*  i.  e.  Almost  two  years  after  he  had  begun  to  study  Bertram's  book, 
f  i.  e.  Justus  Jonas' s  Catechism. 


28 

On  the  other  hand  it  should  be  observed  that,  in  this  same 
Session,  "  The  Lord  Paget,"  another  witness,  said  that,  in 
the  Sermon  in  question,  the  Bishop's  advocacy  of  the  Mass 
went  to  prove  "a  CARNAL  Presence." — p.  162. 

"  But,"  as  Foxe  says,  "  against  this  Dr.  Gardiner,  we 
will  sit  and  watch,  on  the  contrary  side,  Dr.  Redman."  In 
a  Document  called 

"  A  Note  of  ike  Communication  that  I,  Richard  Wilkes,  had 
with  Master  Doctor  Redman,  being  sick  at  Westminster  on  his 
death  bed,  but  of  good  memory,  the  2nd  day  of  November,  1551,  in 
the  presence  of  Master  Young,  and  another  whom  I  did  not  know, 
and  two  of  Master  Doctor  Redman's  servants,  the  one  called  Ellis, 
and  the  other  unknown,"  occur  the  following  passages  : — 

"  Then  I  asked  him  of  the  presence  of  Christ. — He  said,  Christ 
was  present  with  His  Sacrament,  and  in  those  that  received  it  as  they 
ought.  And  there  was  *  mira  unitio,'  a  wonderful  union  (for  that 
word  was  named),  betwixt  Christ  and  us,  as  St.  Paul  saith  :  .  .  .  . 
'  Ye  be  bone  of  His  bone,  and  flesh  of  His  flesh  :'  the  which  union 
was  ineffable. 

"  Then  I  asked  him  what  he  thought  of  the  opinion  that  Christ 
was  there  [i.  e.  in  the  Sacrament]  corporally,  naturally,  and 

really.    He  answered,  *  If  you,  mean  by  corporally,  naturally, 

and  really,  that  He  is  there  present  (vere,)  I  grant. 

"  Then  I  asked,  how  he  thought  of  that  which  was  wont 
commonly  to  be  spoken,  that  Christ  was  there  flesh,  blood,  and 
foOHC  J  as  I  have  heard  the  stewards  in  their  Leets  give  charge  when 
the  Six  Articles  stood  in  effect,  and  charge  the  inquest  to  inquire, 
that  if  there  were  any  that  would  deny  that  Christ  was  present 
in  the  Sacrament  of  the  Altar,  in  flesh,  blood,  and  bone,  they 
should  apprehend  them.  He  said  that  it  was  too  gross,  and  could 
not  well  be  excused  from  the  opinion  of  the  Capernaites. 

"  Then  I  asked  him,  *  Inasmuch  as  Christ  is  there  (vere,)  how  do  we 
receive  Him  ?  in  our  minds  and  spiritual  parts,  or  with  our  mouths, 
and  into  our  bodies;  or  both  ?'  He  said,  *  We  receive  Him  in  our 
minds  and  souls  by  faith.' 

'*  Then,  inasmuch  as  he  was  much  on  this  point,  that  there  was 
'  mira  unitio,'  *  a  marvellous  union  '  betwixt  us  and  Christ,  in  that 
we  were  *  caro  ex  carne  ejus,  et  os  ex  ossibus  ejus,'  'bone  of  His 
bone  and  flesh  of  His  flesh ;'  I  desired  to  know  his  opinion,  whether 
we  received  the  very  body  of  Christ  with  our  mouths  and  into  our 
bodies,  or  no  ? — Here  he  paused  and  held  his  peace  a  little 
space  ;  and  shortly  after  he  spake,  saying,  *  I  will  not  say  so  ;  I 
cannot  tell ;  it  is  a  hard  question  :  but  surely,'  saith  he,  *  we  receive 
Christ  in  our  souls  by  faith.  When  you  do  speak  of  it  otherways,  it 
soundeth  grossly,  and  savoureth  of  the  Capernaites.'  " — Foxe,  Acts 
and  Monuments,  vol.  vi.,  p.  267.  ed.  1846. 


29 

So  again  in 

"Another  Communication  between  Dr.  Redman,  lying  in  Ms 
death-bed,  and  Master  Nowel,  then  schoolmaster  in  Westminster,  and 
certain  others,  with  Notes  of  his  Censure  and  Judgment  touching 
certain  points  of  Christ's  religion,"  we  read  :— 

"  V.  Item — That  the  wicked  are  not  partakers  of  the  body  of 
Christ,  but  receive  the  outward  Sacrament  only. 

"  VI.  Item — That  the  Sacrament  ought  not  to  be  carried  about 
in  procession ;  for  it  is  taught  what  is  the  use  of  it  in  these  words, 
( Accipite,  manducate,  et  bibite,'  and  '  Hoc  facite  in  mei  memoriam  ;' 
*  Take,  eat,  and  drink,'  and  '  Do  this  in  remembrance  of  Me.' 

"  VII.  Item — That  nothing  which  is  seen  in  the  Sacrament,  or 
perceived  with  any  outward  SCUSC,  is  to  be  worshipped.* 

"  VIII.  Item — That  we  receive  not  Christ's  body,  *  corporaliter, 
id  est  crasse,'  corporally,  that  is  to  say,  grossly,  like  other  meats, 
and  like  as  the  Capernaites  did  understand  it. 

IX.  Item — That  we  receive  Christ's  body,  '  sic  spiritualiter,  ut 
tamen  vere  ;'  so  spiritually  that  nevertheless  truly/' 

The  following  Declaration  of  John  Young,  (one  of  the 
witnesses  who  attested  these  items,)  as  to  No.  V.,  is  given  by 
Foxe  :— 

'*  Imprimis —That  Dr.  Redman  said  more,  whereas  St.  Augus- 
tine said  'Quod  Judas  idem  accepit  quod  Petrus/  *  that  Judas 
received  the  same  that  Peter  did,'  he  said,  that  he  understood  that 
of  the  Sacrament,  and  that  after  the  same  phrase  a  man  might  say 
'  Quod  Simon  Magus  idem  baptisma  recepit  quod  apostoli,'  *  That 
Simon  Magus  received  the  same  baptism  that  the  Apostles  did,' 
when  he  did  receive  only  the  outward  Sacrament  to  his  condem- 
nation ;  for  he  said  that  he  thought  Christ  would  not  vouchsafe  to 
give  His  holy  flesh  to  an  ungodly  man  :  and  this,  he  said,  was 
always  his  mind,  though  he  knew  well  that  other  men  did  otherwise 
think."— Ibid  pp.  269-70. 

Redman's  views  are  more  fully  set  out  in  "  The  Letter  of 
Master  Young  to  Master  Cheke  concerning  Dr.  Redman, 
translated  out  of  Latin  into  English."  Nowell,  afterwards 
Dean  of  St.  Paul's,  came  to  Dr.  Redman  during  his  illness, 
to  ask  his  opinion  on  several  points  : — 

"  When  he  was  asked  whether  wicked  and  ungodly  people,  in  the 
Holy  Communion,  did  eat  the  body  of  Christ  and  drink  His  blood, 
he  answered,  that  such  kind  of  men  did  not  eat  Christ's  most  blessed 
flesh,  but  only  took  the  Sacrament,  to  their  own  damnation ; 
saying  that  Christ  would  not  give  His  most  pure  and  holy  flesh  to  be 
eaten  of  such  naughty  and  impious  persons,  but  would  withdraw 
Himself  from  them *  [they]  do  receive  the  Sacrament 

*  The  opposite  then  is  implied. 


so 

and  the  selfsame  which  good  and  godly  men  receive ;  but  the  Body 
of  Christ  they  do  not  receive,  for  Christ  doth  not  vouchsafe  to  de- 
liver it  to  them.'  And  thus,  he  said,  was  his  opinion  and  belief, 
although  he  knew  others  to  be  of  a  contrary  judgment. 

"  Being  then  after  this  demanded,  whether  he  thought  Christ's 
presence  to  be  in  the  Sacrament,  or  no  ;  he  answered  that  Christ 
did  give  and  offer  to  faithful  Christian  men  His  very  real  Body  and 
Blood  verily  and  really,  under  Sacraments  of  Bread  and  Wine  ; 
insomuch  that  they  which  devoutly  come  to  be  partakers  of  that 
Holy  Food,  are,  by  the  benefit  thereof,  united  and  made  one  with 
Christ  in  His  Flesh  and  Body.  And  therefore,  he  said,  that  Christ  did 

distribute  His  Body  spiritually ;  that  He  g'ave  it  truly ;  yet  not 

so,  nevertheless,  that  by  these  and  the  like  words,  we  should  con- 
ceive any  glOSS,  carnal  intelligence,  such  as  the  Capernaites  once 
dreamed  of ;  but  that  (quoth  he)  we  might  labour  and  endeavour 
to  express  by  some  kind  of  words,  the  ineffable  majesty  of  this  mys- 
tery. For  the  manner  whereby  Christ  is  there  present,  and 
ministereth  to  the  faithful  His  Flesh,  is  altogether  inexplicable  ;  but 
we  must  believe  (quoth  he)  and  think,  that  by  God's  mighty  power, 
and  the  holy  operation  of  His  Spirit,  this  so  notable  a  mystery  was 
made  ;  and  that  heaven  and  earth  were  joined  together  in  that 
moment,  as  the  blessed  man,  St.  Gregory  saith,  '  the  lowest  parts 
are  joined  with  the  highest,'  by  which  is  understood  that  holy  food 
whereby  they  which  be  regenerate  by  the  Holy  Ghost  in  baptism  are 
nourished  to  immortality.  And  further  he  said,  that  Christ's  Body 
was  received  in  the  said  Sacrament  by  faith,  which  being  received,  both 
body  and  soul  were  quickened  to  everlasting  life." — Ibid  pp.272 — 3. 
HOOPER,  Bishop  of  Gloucester,  may  be  regarded  as 
another  important  witness  to  the  language  of  this  period 
on  the  Real  Presence:  in  his  "Visitation  Book"  of  1551-2, 
among  his  "  Articles  concerning  the  Christian  Religion,"  we 
read  thus : — 

"  X.  Item,  that  in  the  Sacrament  of  the  Body  and  Blood  of 
the  Lord  there  is  no  trailSubstillltiatioil  of  the  bread  and  wine, 

into  the  Body  and  Blood  of  Christ,  or  any  manner  of  corporal  or 

local  presence  of  Christ  in,  under,  or  with  the  bread  and  wine. . 

"---Later  Writings  of  Bishop  Hooper,  Parker  Society, 

p.  122. 

"  Again,  in  the  "  Articles  whereunto  William  Phelps, 
pastor  and  curate  of  Cirencester . . . .  consented. . . .  ministered 
unto  him  by  John  Hooper,  Bishop  of  Gloucester,  the  29th 
day  of  April,  in  the  5th  year  of  the  reign  of  King  Edward 
the  Sixth,  1551,"  we  find  :- 

*'  Item,  that  the  same  Holy  Word  of  God  doth  confess,  hold, 
defend,  acknowledge  and  maintain,  that  the  very  natural,  Sub- 
stantial, real,  and  corporal  Body  of  Christ,  concerning  His 


31 

humanity,  is  only  and  solely  in  Heaven  and  not  in  the  Sacrament 

and  Communion  of  His  precious  Body  and  Blood " 

"  As  for  the  eating  of  His  Flesh  and  drinking  of  His  Blood  really, 

corporally,  materially,  or  substantially,  it  is  but  a  carnal  and 

gross  opinion  of  men " — p.  153. 

So,  too,  in  "  An  Assertion  and  defence  of  the  true 
knowledge  and  use  of  the  Sacrament  of  Christ's  Precious 
Body  and  Blood,  made  by  John  Wynter,  Master  of  Arts, 
Parson  of  Stawnton,  and  professed  by  him  in  the  Cathedral 
Church  of  Gloucester,  8  November,  Anno  Domini,  1551." 
He  says : — 

" That  in  the  same  Sacrament  by  no  manner  of  means, 

reasons,  or   ways,    the  Body   and   Blood  of    Christ   is    carnally, 

bodily,  really,  or  substantially  present,  but  only  spiritually  to 

the  soul  and  eye  of  faith  ; . . And   as  in  the  breaking  of  the 

bread  in  the  Sacrament,  after  the  words  of  Christ  which  be  these 
*  That  is  given  for  you/  there  is  no  sensible  feeling  or  painful 
passion,  nor  killing  again  of  Christ's  precious  Body,  no  more  is 
there  ill  the  bread,  or  under  the  bread  of  the  Sacrament,  after  the 
words,  which  be  these,  « This  is  My  Body,'  any  natural,  Corporal, 
or  Substantial  presence  of  the  Body  that  died,  or  of  the  Blood  that 
was  shed  ;  but  that  the  bread  and  wine  remaining  in  their  substance 
be  Sacraments  of  Christ's  Body  and  Blood,  which  be  present  unto 
the  eyes  spiritually  of  faith,  which  is  in  the  receiver,  and  not 
Substantially  nor  corporally  in  the  elements  of  bread  and  wine. 
And  whosoever  be  of  the  contrary  opinion  and  would  defend 
tranSUbstantiation  or  corporal  presence,  I  do  condemn  his  faith 
as  an  error  and  opinion  contrary  to  the  express  Word  of  God. . . . 
.."—p.  155. 

Having  thus  considered  the  opinions  on  the  Real  Presence 
prevalent  at  this  time  among  the  leading  persons  who  con- 
ducted Ecclesiastical  Affairs,  we  are  brought  in  historical 
order  to  the  Articles  and  the  Prayer  Book  of  1552.  For  the 
purpose  of  this  enquiry,  it  is  not  material  to  ascertain 
whether  the  XXIXth  of  these  42  Articles  had  been  finally 
settled  at  the  time  when  the  Prayer  Book  was  published  :  there 
seems  indeed  no  reason  to  think  the  contrary  :  for  although 
the  Book  came  into  use  on  the  1st  November,  and  the  Arti- 
cles did  not  receive  the  Archbishop's  last  corrections  until 
the  24th  of  the  same  month,  and  were  only  published  in  the 
May  of  the  following  year  (1553),  there  is  nothing  in  the  lan- 
guage of  the  Article  which  (judging  from  what  we  have 
already  seen)  could  well  be  a  subject  of  dispute  among  the 
authors  and  revisers  of  it.  The  Article  runs  thus  : 


32 

(1.)  "XXIX.  Of  the  Lord's  Supper.  The  Supper  of  the 
Lorde  is  not  onely  a  sign  of  the  loue  that  Christiens  ought  to  haue 
among  theimselues  one  to  another,  but  rather  it  is  a  Sacrament  of 
our  redemption  by  Christ's  death,  insomoche  that  to  soche  as  right- 
lie,  woorthelie,  and  with  faieth  receiue  the  same,  the  breade  whiche 
we  breake  is  a  communion  of  the  bodie  of  Christe.  Likewise  the 
Cuppe  of  blessing  is  a  Communion  of  the  bloude  of  Christe. 

(2)  "  Transubstanciation,  or  the  chaunge  of  the  substaunce  of 
breade  and  wine  into  the  substaunce  of  Christes  bodie  and  bloude  can- 
not be  proued  by  holie  writte,  but  is  repugnant  to  the  plaine  woordes 
of  Scripture,  and  hath  giuen  occasion  to  many  supersticions. 

(3.)  "  Forasmoche  as  the  trueth  of  mannes  nature  requireth, 
that  the  bodie  of  one,  and  theself  same  manne  cannot  be  at  one  time 
in  diuerse  places,  but  must  nedes  be  iu  some  one  certeine  place : 
Therefore  the  bodie  of  Christe  cannot  bee  presente  at  one  time  in 
many  and  diuerse  places.  And  because  (as  holie  Scripture  doeth 
teache)  Christe  was  taken  up  into  heauen,  and  there  shall  continue 
unto  thende  of  the  worlde,  a  faithful  man  ought  not,  either  tobeleue, 
or  openlie  to  confess  the  reall  and  bodelie  [Realem  et  Corporalem] 
presence  (as  thei  terme  it)  of  Christes  tlesll  and  bloiule,  in  the 
Lordes  Supper. 

r{4.)  "The  Sacramente  of  the  Lordes  Supper  was  not  com- 
maunded  by  Christes  ordinaunce  to  be  kepte,  carried  about,  lifted  up, 
nor  worshipped." 

Now,  It  must  be  plain,  I  think,  that  the  3rd  paragraph  of 
this  Article  is  the  deliberate  judgment  of  the  Convocation* 
of  1552  on  a  point  which,  as  we  have  seen,  had  been  long  de- 
bated in  connection  with  the  docrine  of  Transubstantiation  ; 
and  the  Church  of  England,  thus  speaking  S ynodically,  cau- 
tiously limits  herself  to  a  negative  statement ;  that  statement 
is  simply  and  solely  a  denial  and  a  condemnation  of  the,  then 
still  prevalent,  opinion  or  belief  that  Christ's  NATURAL  FLESH 
AND  BLOOD  was  present  in  the  Sacrament  of  the  Altar  in 
some  "  REALL  and  BODILIE  "  i.  e.}  in  some  CARNAL,  PHYSICAL 
ORGANICAL,  and  withal  LOCAL  manner.  The  expression  "as 
thei  terme  it,"  interpreted,  as  it  must  be,  by  the  language 
which  has  been  already  quoted  from  controversial  and  other 
Documents  of  the  six  preceding  years,  seems  to  me  to  demon- 
strate this.  Such  a  belief,  and  moreover  the  open  profession 
of  it,  was,  in  the  judgment  of  the  Synod,  what  "a  faithful 

*  The  title  proves  this  : — "  Articles  agreed  on  by  the  Bishops  and  o'her  learned 
men  in  the  synod  at  London,  in  the  year  of  our  Lord  God  1552,  for  the  avoiding  of 
controversy  in  opinions,  and  the  establishment  of  a  godlie  concord  in  certain  matters 
of  Religion.  Published  by  the  King's  Majesty's  commandment,  in  the  month  of 
May,  1553.  Rich.  Graftonus,  typographic  regius  excudebat.  Lond.  mense 
Junii,  1553." 


33 

man  ought  not "  to  hold  or  promulge :  how  much  he  might 
or  must  hold,  or  what  language  he  should  use  to  express 
his  belief  in  the  Eucharistic  Presence,  the  Synod  did  not 
attempt  to  determine:  indeed  we  may  fairly  presume  that 
the  various  opinions  of  its  members  must  have  been  an 
effectual  bar  to  any  such  definition,  if  it  had  been  even 
thought  of:  all  that  the  Convocation  decreed  was — that  a 
specific  belief,  and  its  recognized  verbal  expression,  which 
were  avowedly  one  logical  result  of  the  theory  of  Transub- 
stantiation,  "  ought  not "  to  be  persisted  in — all  that  it 
seems  to  have  meant  was,  to  discountenance,  discourage,  and 
prevent  the  continuance  of  this  belief  and  form  of  words. 

Coeval  with  this  Synodical  decision  appeared  the  2nd  Prayer 
Book  of  Edward  Vlth  :  certain  complaints  which,  as  is  well 
known,  had  been  made  by  the  more  eager  of  the  reforming 
party  in  England,  and  in  particular  the  censures  of  Bucer,  are 
stated  to  have  led  to  the  revision  of  the  former  Book. 
Whether  the  concessions  which  this  revision  implied  were 
wise  or  not,  it  is  unnecessary  and  might  look  immodest  for 
me  here  to  discuss.  But  it  is  of  consequence  to  ask — was 
the  new  Book,  with  its  altered  language  and  arrangement, 
designed  to  teach  another  and  a  lower  doctrine  than  that 
embodied  in  the  earlier  Book  ?  To  this  question  I  feel  no 
hesitation  in  replying,  as  my  firm  conviction,  that  it  was  not. 
Such  indeed  is  but  the  recorded  opinion  of  many  who  have 
-critically  compared  the  two ;  though  some  of  them  have 
thought  that  the  Doctrine  of  the  first  Book,  on  the  Eucharist 
especially,  was  but  barely  saved  in  the  Second.  Without 
attempting  here,  however,  any  proof,  from  internal  evidence, 
of  the  conviction  just  expressed,  it  must  suffice  (and  is  more 
to  the  purpose  probably)  to  look  for  some  Historical  attesta- 
tions of  it ;  and  the  three  following  seem  enough  for  the 
purpose : — 

"  First :  we  have  the  witness  of  the  Act  of  Uniformity, 
which  authorized  the  Book.  In  that  Statute,  the  £  and  6 
Edw.  VI.  c.  i.  A.D.  1552,  which  (considering  the  co-operation 
of  the  Ecclesiastical  and  Civil  Legislatures  in  those  days) 
must  be  held  to  embody  the  opinion  of  both  the  Bishops 
and  the  Parliament,  the  First  Prayer  Book  is  spoken  of  as — 

F 


34 

"  ....  a  very  godly  order ....  agreeable  to  the  Word  of  God  and 
the  Primitive  Church,  very  comfortable  to  all  good  people  desiring 
to  live  in  Christian  conversation,  and  most  profitable  to  the  estate  of 
this  realm.... . " 

And  then  the  Act  proceeds  to  state  in  the  5th  Section 
that— 

"  Because  there  hath  arisen  in  the  use  and  exercise  of  the  afore- 
said Common  Service  in  the  Church  heretofore  set  forth,  divers 
doubts," 

not;  be  it  observed,  as  to  its  Doctrinal  teaching  but — 

(1)  "  for    the   fashion    and    manner   of  the    ministration   of  the 
same," 

while  even  this  was  not  really  owing  to  anything  in  the 
Book  itself,  but  grew 

"rather  by  the  curiosity  of  the  Minister  and  Mistakers,  than 
of  any  other  worthy  cause ;  therefore,  as  well  for  the  more  plain 
and  manifest  explanation  hereof,  as  for  the  more  perfection  of  the 
said  Order  of  Common  Service,  in  some  places  where  it  is  necessary 
to  make  the  same  prayers  and  fashion  of  service  more  earnest  and 
fit  to  stir  Christian  people  to  the  true  honouring  of  Almighty  God  :" 

(a  practice  in  which,  as  the  Preamble  states,  l<  a  great  num- 
ber" of  people  proved  themselves  very  deficient,  by  their 
choosing  to 

(2)  "  Abstain  and  refuse  to  come  to  their  Parish  Churches  and 
other  places  where  Common  Prayer,  administration  of  the  Sacraments, 
and  preaching  of  the  word  of  God,  is  used  upon  Sundays   and  other 
days  ordained  to  be  holy  days") 

on  these  two  accounts  (1  and  2)  it  was  that 
"  The  aforesaid  Order  of  Common  service  "  had  been  "  faithfully 
and  godly  perused,  explained,  and  made  fully  perfect." 

Next:  we  have  the  testimony  of  LATIMER,  a  most  com- 
petent witness,  who  (in  the  "  Disputation  at  Oxford  "  of  1554, 
to  be  noticed  hereafter,  when  in  the  course  of  the  argument, 
Weston  was  led  to  ask  him  "  Which  Communion  [Book]  ? — 
the  first,  or  the  last" — *.  e.  the  Liturgy  of  1549  or  1552 — he 
referred  to  ?  )  said  : — 

"  I  find  no  great  diversity  in  them ;  they  are  one  supper  of  the 

Lord :  but  I  like  the  last  very  well." 

"  Weston.     Then  the  first  was  naught,  belike." 

"  Latimer.     I  do  not  well  remember  wherein  they  differ." 

"  Weston.     Then   cake-bread   and  loaf-bread  are    all   one  with 

you."— p.  504. 

Thirdly  :  there  are  the  two  considerations  ;  (1)  First  that  the 


35 

Book  was  not,  so  far  as  I  am  aware,  held  at  the  time  to  teach 
a  doctrine  contrary*  to  that  of  the  former  Book :  (2) 
Secondly,  that  it  was  the  same  Book,  with  no  material  altera- 
tions, which  satisfied  the  Roman  party  in  England  for  the  first 
ten  years  of  Elizabeth's  reign,  and  which,  as  we  have  strong 
ground  for  believing,  w  ould  have  received  the  Pope's  confirma- 
tion, had  the  Queen  chosen  to  acknowledge  his  Supremacy. 

I  say — with  no  material  alterations  ;  because  it  cannot  be 
seriously  contended,  I  imagine,  that  the  terms  used  in  deli- 
vering the  Sacrament  destroyed  its  orthodoxy  in  1552,  and 
revived  it  in  1559;  or  were  so  designed  by  the  revisers  at 
those  periods. 

Now,  it  was  in  this  2nd  Book  of  Edward  VI.  that  the 
Declaration  on  Kneeling  first  appeared.  The  history  of  its 
introduction  plainly  shews  that  the  revisers  did  not  contem- 
plate its  being  there.  The  book,  as  settled  by  Convocation 
and  authorized  by  Statute,  did  not  contain  it :  many  of  the 
copies  apparently  were  printedf  without  it ;  nor  was  it  until 
"  the  27th  of  October,  1552,"  four  days  before  the  Feast  of 
All  Saints,  the  day  on  which  its  use  was  to  begin,  that,  as 
Burnet  states — 

"  The  Council  Book  mentions  also  a  letter  written  to  the  Lord 
Chancellor  to  add  in  the  Edition  of  the  new  Common  Prayer  Book,  a 
Declaration  touching  Kneeling  at  the  receiving  of  the  Communion." 
— Hist.  Befor.  Part  3,  Bk.  4,  fol.  p.  210. 

It  is  not  difficult,   I  think,  to  account  for  this  sj;ep  :  the 

*  The  Rubric  in  Edward's  2nd  Book  declaring  what  Bread  "shall  suffice" 
to  be  used  in  the  Celebration,  has  often  in  our  own  times  been  appealed  to  as 
demonstrating  that  those  who  inserted  it  made  altogether  light  of  Consecration, 
because  of  the  concluding  words  "  And  if  any  of  the  bread  or  wine  remain,  the 
Curate  shall  have  it  to  his  own  use,"  which  they  assume  to  refer  to  the  Con- 
secrated elements.  But  this  is  wholly  a  mistake.  The  new  practice  permitted 
[apparently  in  1550  (see  passage  from  p.  64  of  Crammer's  "  Defence" — sup.  p.  22) 
and  now  recognized  as  a  permission,]  by  the  earlier  part  of  the  Rubric,  no  doubt 
created  the  need  for  this  latter  part :  [since  it  would  naturally  become  a 
question — how  to  dispose  of  such  consecrated  Bread  as  had  been  ofrered, 
seeing  that  it,  unlike  "Wafers,  could  not  be  kept  for  future  Celebrations.]  The 
Clergy  of  that  day  could  be  at  no  loss  what  to  do  with  the  remaining  Con- 
secrated elements  when  not  reserved  for  sick  Communions,  as  I  apprehend, 
from  the  Office  for  Communion  of  the  sick,  they  still  were  when  needed. 

Be  it  observed,  too,  that  the  same  Rubric  was  continued  in  Elizabeth's  Book. 

f  "  Sept.  27th  an  order  came  to  Grafton  the  printer  in  any  wise  to  stay  from 
uttering  any  of  the  books  of  the  new  service.  And  if  he  had  distributed  any  of 
them  among  his  company  (of  stationers)  that  then  he  give  strait  commandment 
not  to  put  any  of  them  abroad  until  certain  faults  therein  were  corrected."— 
Strype,  Memorials,  Ed.  vi. 


36 

tide,,  which  in  the  reign  of  Elizabeth  it  was  found  so  almost 
impossible  to  stem,  had  already  set  in  against  Ceremonies, 
and  in  particular  against  external  reverence  in  the  ministra- 
tion of  the  Holy  Communion  :  Cranmer  and  others  could  not 
but  perceive  this,  and  may  easily  have  foreseen  the  evils  which 
might  arise  in  the  use  of  a  Book  which,  to  allay  prejudices, 
had  been  shorn  of  all  which  it  could  safely  part  with  consis- 
tently with  preserving  at  least  a  decent  ministration  of  its 
Offices,  and  especially  that  of  the  Holy  Communion.  Remem- 
bering, too,,  the  objections  which  had  been  made  to  "knock- 
ing and  kneeling,"  at  the  celebration  of  the  Eucharist,  it 
was  a  likely  supposition  that  the  accustomed  gesture  would 
be  sought  to  be  abandoned  by  many  of  the  people  who,  per- 
haps, would  be  encouraged  in  not  a  few  cases  by  their  Clergy. 
To  place  a  direction  for  "  kneeling "  before  words  of  deli- 
very which  certainly  sounded  less  reverential  than  the  old 
form,  would  be  a  probable  security  for  the  continuation  of  an 
external  reverence  which  we  must  believe  the  Bishops  had 
every  intention  to  preserve. 

But  then,  the  very  fact  that  this  direction  was  an  addition, 
and  had  no  counterpart  in  the  Office  which  had  been  censured 
as  too  Ceremonial,  would  easily  excite  suspicion,  and  promote 
criticism.  What  more  probable,  then,  than  that  objections 
were  urged  upon  the  Council  against  the  direction,  and  that 
its  omission  was  pressed  for  ?  This  may  have  been  the  occa- 
sion of  tHe  order  to  the  Printer  to  stay  the  issue,  on  the  plea 
of  correcting  "  certain  faultes."  Yet  the  considerations 
which  I  have  surmised  to  have  prompted  the  direction  were 
doubtless  equally  weighty  in  inducing  the  Bishops  and  the 
Privy  Council  to  determine  on  retaining  it  in  the  Book.  To 
explain  however  to  the  objectors  that  it  was  not  to  be  con- 
strued as  m  any  way  countenancing  TRANSUBSTANTIATION, 
was  a  natural  resort ;  and  what  terms  so  likely  to  suggest 
themselves  as  those  of  the  xxixth.  Article  which  had  then 
been  prepared.  Accordingly,  as  I  think  a  comparison  of  the 
Article  and  the  Declaration  must  show,  the  latter  was  framed 
upon  that  model  and  added  'to  the  Book  upon  the  Council's 
authority  to  meet  the  case  of  the  objectors. 


37 

We  know  that  one  of  Bucer's  Censures  was  that  the 
Consecration  Prayer  in  the  1st  Book  "  favoured  Transub- 
stantiation  too  much:"  lean  conceive  nothing  so  probable 
as  that  the  objectors  to  the  Rubric  for  "  kneeling  "  thought 
the  same.  The  Bishops  were  most  desirous  to  eliminate 
that  Doctrine :  this,  as  I  have  already  urged,  seemed  to  be 
their  ONE  aim  with  regard  to  the  Eucharistic  controversy. 
Did  they  mean  anything  more  when  they  sanctioned  this  new 
Declaration  ?  I  most  entirely  believe  that  they  did  not. 

This  persuasion  derives  some  strength  from  such  an  occur- 
rence as  the  following,  which  happened  only  three  months 
afterwards. 

During  the  reign  of  Edward  VI.  (viz.  about  January, 
1553-4)  there  were,  as  Foxe  relates,  certain  "  Articles  and 
Informations  to  the  King's  Honourable  Council,  put  up  and 
exhibited  by  Hugh  Rawlins  and  Thomas  Lee,  against  the 
blessed  man  of  God,  Master  Ferrar,  Bishop  of  St.  David's." 
Among  these  were  some  which  charged  him  with  "  Mainte- 
nance of  Superstition  contrary  to  the  King's  Ordinances  and 
Injunctions."  The  Charges  were  preferred  by  some  members 
of  his  Cathedral.  To  the  XX  1st  Article,  which  charged 
that  "He,  being  often  in  Carmarthen,  and  other  places  in  the 
Chancel,  at  the  time  of  Holy  Communion,  not  only  tarried 
there  himself,  neither  communicating  nor  ministering,  bare- 
headed and  uncoiffed,  reverently  kneeling;  but  also  permitteth 
the  people  there  to  continue,  the  chancel  and  choir  full, 
kneeling  and  knocking  their  breasts :  which  manner  is  yet 
used  in  all  the  Diocese,  without  any  reformation  or  gainsay  of 
him  or  any  of  his  officers  : — " 

"  ..  ..he  saith,  that  he  hath  been  divers  times  in  the  Choir  of 
Caermarthen,  and  hath  tarried  there  in  the  communion-time,  not 
communicating  himself ;  and  that  in  every  church  where  he  cometh 
on  the  holy-day  to  preach,  or  to  pray,  he  kneeleth  in  the  choir, 
bareheaded,  as  well  at  Matins  before  the  communion,  as  at  Even- 
song after,  without  any  superstition :  he  thinketh  it  not  necessary 
for  the  Communion's  sake  to  leave  kneeling  to  Christ,  But  he 
hath  diligently  taught  the  people  not  to  kneel  nor  knock  to  the 
Visible  Show,  or  external  SllOW  of  the  Sacrament.  And  the 
choirs  of  Caermarthen  and  other  places  there,  are  not  close  at  the 
sides,  so  that  the  people  may  come  in  and  forth  at  their  pleasure. 


ss 

Moreover  the  King's  ordinances  do  not  authorize  him  to  rebuke 
the  people  for  knocking  on  their  breasts,  in  token  of  repentance 
of  their  sins ;  nor  for  kneeling  in  token  of  submission  to  God  for 
mercy  in  Christ."- — Foxe,  vol.  vii.,  pp.  6  and  13. 

It  is  just  worth  while  to  remark  that  Foxe  speaks  of  Ferrar 
as  "  the  virtuous  and  godly  Bishop,"  and  calls  the  charges 
"  the  quarrelling  and  frivolous  articles  of  his  present  adversa- 
ries :"  also  that  through  various  delays  upon  these  charges,  he 
"  was  detained  in  prison  till  the  death  of  King  Edward,  and 
the  coming  in  of  Queen  Mary  and  popish  religion,  whereby  a 
new  trouble  rose  upon  him,  being  now  accused  and  examined 
for  his  faith  and  doctrine,"  (pp.  16  and  21,)  for  which  he  was 
ultimately  put  to  death. 

Still  more  to  the  purpose,  as  showing  the  continuous  iden- 
tity of  language  on  the  Eucharistic  Presence  with  that  used 
alike  in  1549  and  1552,  are  the  Writings  and  Examinations 
of  such  of  the  Prelates  and  other  Clergy  as  were  put  on  their 
trial  during  the  reign  of  Mary.  It  will  be  found  that  thenr 
as  before,  it  was  the  doctrine  of  Transubstantiation  which  was 
the  key  to  all  their  statements  against  what  continued  to  be 
known  as  the  REAL  Presence. 

Upon  the  Accession  of  Mary,  a  Disputation  was  held  in 
the  Convocation  House  at  London,  commencing  Oct.  18, 
1553.  On  the  fourth  day,  Oct.  25,  John  Philpot,  Arch- 
deacon of  Winchester,  being  the  Disputant,  prefaced  his 
argument  with  an  oration,  in  which  he  said  thus : — 

"  <  But  before  I  bring,  forth  any  argument,  I  will,  in  one  word, 
declare  what  manner  of  presence  I  disallow  in  the  Sacrament,  to  the 
intent  the  hearers  may  the  better  understand  to  what  end  and  effect 
mine  arguments  shall  tend  ;  not  to  deny  utterly  the  presence  of 
Christ  in  his  Sacraments,  truly  ministered  according  to  His  institu- 
tion ;  but  only  to  deny  that  gross  and  Carnal  presence,  which  you 
of  this  house  have  already  subscribed  unto,  to  be  in  the  Sacrament 
of  the  Altar,  contrary  to  the  truth  and  manifest  meaning  of  the 
Scriptures  :  That  by  tl'rtlisubstsllltiation  of  the  sacramental  bread 
and  wine,  Christ's  natural  Body  should,  by  the  virtue  of  the  words 

pronounced  by  the  priest,  be  contained  and  included  under  tlie 
forms  or  accidents  of  bread  and  wine.    This  kind  of  Presence, 

imagined  by  men,  I  do  deny,'  quoth  Philpot,   *  and  against  this  I 
will  reason.'"— p.  401. 

Dr.  Ckedsey,  in  reply,  contended  for  an  "  invisible  presence'' 


of  Christ's  natural  Body  in  the  Sacrament ;  and  that  Christ's 
Flesh  is  visibly  ascended  into  Heaven,  and  invisibly  abideth 
still  in  the  Sacrament  of  the  Altar" — p.  403. 

In  the  argument  on  the  30th  of  October,  Philpot  said 
thus : — 

"  But  bodily  to  be  present,  and  bodily  to  be  absent ;  to  be  on 
earth  and  to  be  in  heaven,  and  all  at  one  present  time ;  be  things 
contrary  to  the  nature  of  a  human  body :  ergo,  it  cannot  be  said  of 
the  human  Body  of  Christ,  that  the  selfsame  Body  is  both  in 
heaven,  and  also  in  earth  at  one  instant,  either  visibly  or  invisibly." 
—p.  408. 

Again,  take  the  following  extract  from — 

"  A  Conference  between  NICHOLAS  RIDLEY,  sometime 
Bishop  of  London,  and  SECRETARY  BOURN,  with  others,  at 
the  Lieutenant's  table  at  the  Tower."  A.D.  1553. 

"  Mr.  Fecknam  perceiving  whereunto  my  talk  went,  c  Why,' 
quoth  he,  *  what  circumstances  can  ye  shew  me  that  should  move 
you  to  think  of  any  other  sense,  than  as  the  words  plainly  say,  Hoc 
est  corpus  meum,  quod  pro  vobis  tradetur  ?  This  is  My  Body  which 
shall  be  betrayed  for  you.' 

"'  Sir/  said  I,  '  even  the  next  sentence  that  followeth  :  Hoc  facile 
in  meam  commemorationem.  Do  this  in  My  remembrance.  And 
also  by  what  reason  ye  say  the  bread  is  turned  into  Christ's  carnal 
Body ;  by  the  same  I  may  say,  that  it  turned  into  His  mystical 
Body.  For  as  that  saith  of  it,  '  Hoc  est  corpus  meum  quod  pro  vobis 
tradetur:'  so  Paul  which  spake  by  Christ's  spirit  saith,  '  Unus panis 
et  unum  corpus  multi  sumus  omnes,  qui  de  uno  pane  participamus. 
We  being  many  are  all  but  one  bread,  and  one  body,  in  as  much  as 
we  are  partakers  of  one  bread.'  " — p.  157. 

Afterwards  Ridley  refers  them  to  Bertram's  Book,  pro- 
fessing his  agreement  with  it. 

So,  too,  the  same  expressions  are  to  be  gathered  from 

"  The  Disputation  had  at  Oxford  the  \%th  day  of 
April,  1554,  between  Master  Hugh  Latimer,  Answerer,  and 
Master  Smith  and  others,  Opposers"  I  extract  the  following. 
To  the  first  Conclusion,  viz  : — 

"  That  in  the  Sacrament  of  the  Altar,  by  the  virtue  of  God's 
word  pronounced  by  the  Priest,  there  is  really  present  the  natural 
Body  of  Christ,  conceived  of  the  Virgin  Mary,  under  the  kinds 
of  the  appearances  of  bread  and  wine  :  in  like  manner  His  Blood." 


40 

Latimer  replied . — 

" I  say,  that  to  the  right  celebration  of  the  Lord's  supper 

there  is  no  other  presence  of  Christ  required,  than  a  spiritual 
presence  :  and  this  presence  is  sufficient  foe  a  Christian  man,  as  a 
presence  by  which  we  abide  in  Christ,  and  Christ  abideth  in  us, 
to  the  obtaining  of  eternal  life,  if  we  persevere.  And  this  same 
presence  may  be  called  most  fitly  a  real  presence  ;  that  is  a  presence 
not  figured,  but  a  true  and  a  faithful  presence :  which  thing  I 
here  rehearse,  lest  some  sycophant  or  scorner  should  suppose  me, 
with  the  Anabaptists,  to  make  nothing  else  of  the  Sacrament,  but 
a  naked  and  a  bare  sign.  As  for  that  which  is  feigned  of  many 
concerning  their  corporal  presence,  I,  for  my  part,  take  it  but 
for  a  papistical  invention  ;  therefore  think  it  utterly  to  be  rejected." 

Sol. 


It  was  asked  by  Tresham— 

11  Of  what  Flesh  meant  Christ  ?    His  true  Flesh  or  no  ?" 
"  Latimer.     Of  His  true  Flesh,  spiritually  to  be  eaten  in  the 
supper  by  faith,  and  not  corporally." — p.  506. 

Again  Seton,  quoting  St.  Cyprian  De  coena  Domini,  enquired, 

" where  doth  it  [the  New  Testament]  command  the 

drinking  of  Blood  ?" 

"  Latimer.  In  these  words,  '  Bibite  ex  hoc  omnes  ;'  i.e.  '  Drink 
ye  all  of  this?'" 

"Seton.     Then  we  taste  true  Blood." 

"  Latimer.  We  do  taste  true  Blood,  but  spiritually  ;  and  this 
is  enough." 

'"  Weston.  Augustine  upon  the  XLVth.  Psalm,  saith :  '  Drink 
boldly  the  Blood  which  ye  have  poured  out.' — Ergo,  It  is  Blood." 

"  Latimer.  I  never  denied  it  nor  ever  will  I  go  from  it,  but  that 
we  drink  the  very  Blood  of  Christ  indeed,  but  spiritually :  for  the 
same  St.  Augustine  saith,  '  Believe  and  thou  hast  eaten.' " — 
p.  507. 

"  Latimer.  The  substance  of  Blood  is  drunk,  but  not  in  one 
manner. 

"  Pie.     It  doth  not  require  the  same  manner  of  drinking." 

"  Latimer.    It  is  the  same  thiii"1,  not  the  same  ma iiner.    I 

have  no  more  to  say. 

"  Here  Weston  cited  the  place  of  Crysostome,  of  Judas's  treason  : 
*O  the  madness  of  Judas  !  He  made  bargain  with  the  Jews  for 
thirty  pence  to  sell  Christ,  and  Christ  offered  him  His  Blood, 
which  he  sold.' " 

11  Latimer.  I  grant  He  offered  to  Judas  His  Blood,  which  he 
sold,  but  in  a  Sacrament/' 


41 

"  Cartwright.  Linus  and  all  the  rest  do  confess  the  body  of 
Christ  to  be  ill  the  Sacrament;  and  St.  Augustine  also,  upon 
Psalm  xcviii.  upon  this  place,  *  Adorate  scabellum  pedum,'  &c., 
granteth  that  It  is  to  be  worshipped." 

"  Latimer.  We  do  worship  Christ  in  the  Heavens,  and  we  do 
worship  Him  ill  the  Sacrament :  but  the  massing  is  not  to  be  used." 

"Smith.     Do  you  think  that  Cyril  was  of  the  ancient  Church  ?" 

"  Latimer.     I  do  think  so." 

"  Smith.  He  saith  (in  Johan  I.  x.  c.  xiii.)  *  that  Christ  dwelleth 
in  us  corporally.'  These  be  Cyril's  words  of  the  mystical  bene- 
diption."  -  ,nt? 

"  Latimer.  That  '  corporally '  .hath  another  understanding  than 
you  gTOSSly  take  it." — Foxe  vi.  pp.  508-9 

Or  take  the  two  following  instances : 

(1)  First,  the  case  of  "  John  Bradford,  Martyr,"  who,  in 
his  second  examination  before  the  Lord  Chancellor,  Jan. 
29th,  1554-5,  in  reply  to  his  Lordship's  question,  "Well, 
then,  how  say  you  to  the  blessed  Sacrament  ?  Do  you  not 
believe  there  Christ  to  be  present  concerning  his  natural 
Body  ?"  Answered— 

"  My  Lord,  I  do  not  believe  that  Christ  is  corporally  present  at 
and  in  the  due  administration  of  the  Sacrament.  By  this  word 
'corporally'  1  mean  that  Christ  is  there  present  corporally  UUtO 
faith."— Foxe,  vol.  vii.,  p.  157. 

So,  too,  in  his  "  Last  Examination"  referring  to  the  for- 
mer, the  Chancellor  said — 

"  Why  !  didst  not  thou  deny  Christ's  presence  in  the  Sacrament  ?" 
"  Bradford.     No !   I  never  denied  nor  taught,  but  that  to  faith, 

whole  Christ,  Body  and  Blood,  was  as  present  as  bread  and  wine  to 

the  due  receiver." 

"  L.  Chancellor.     Yea,  but  dost  thou  not  believe  that  Christ's 

Body  naturally  and  really  is  there,  under  the  forms  of  bread 
and  wine  ?" 

"  Bradford.  My  Lord,  I  believe  Christ  is  present  there  to  the 
faith  of  the  due  receiver :  as  for  trailSllbstaiitiation,  I  plainly  and 
flatly  tell  you,  I  believe  it  not." 

'*  Here  was  Bradford  called  diabolus,  a  slanderer ;  *  for  we  ask  no 
question,'  quoth  my  Lord  Chancellor,  '  of  transubstantiation,  but  of 
Christ's  Presence.'  " 

"  Bradford.  I  deny  not  His  Presence  to  the  faith  of  the  receiver  ; 
but  deny  that  He  is  included  in  the  bread,  or  that  the  bread  is 

transubstantiate . ' ' 


42 

tt  Worcester.     If  He  be  not  included,  how  is  He  then  present?" 
"  Bradford.     Forsooth,  though  my  faith   can  tell  how,  yet  my 

tongue  cannot  express  it ;  nor  you  otherwise  than  by  faith,  hear  it, 

or  understand  it." — p.  163. 

(2)  Next ;  in  the  §econd  Examination  of  John  Rogers, 
Vicar  of  St.  Sepulchre's,  Jan.  29,  1554-5,  he  saith — 

" I  cannot  understand  'really  and  substantially'  to 

signify  otherwise  than  corporally :  but  corporally  Christ  is  only 
in  Heaven,  and  so  cannot  Christ  be  corporally  also  in  your 
Sacrament." — p.  598.  ¥ 

The  like  language  we  find  in  the 

"  Conferences  between  Ridley  and  Latimer  during  their 
imprisonment,  A.D.  1555." 

"  Ridley,  v.  They  do  servilely  serve  the  holy  sign,  as  St. 
Augustine  speaketh,  (de  doct.  Christ,  lib.  iii.  c.  9.)  instead  of  the 
thing  signified,  whilst  the  Sacramental  Bread  (by  a  solemn  or 
common  error)  is  adored  and  worshipped  for  the  flesh  taken  of  the 
Son  of  God. 

"  Latimer.  If  ye  deny  unto  them  their  corporeal  presence,  and 
transubstantiation,  their  fantastical  adoration  will  (by  and  by) 
vanish  away.  Therefore  be  strong  in  denying  SUCh  a  presence,  and 
then  ye  have  won  the  field. 

"  Furthermore,  in  the  first  Supper,  celebrated  of  Christ  Himself, 
there  is  no  mention  made  of  adoration  of  the  elements.  Who  said, 
*  Eat  ye,  and  drink  ye,'  not  worship  ye.  Therefore,  against  adoration 
may  be  spoken  that  saying  of  Christ  concerning  divorce,  '  From  the 
beginning  it  was  not  so  '. .  . .  •  •  . . — "p.  106. 

"Ridley,  vi.  They  pluck  away  the  honour  from  the  only  sacrifice 
of  Christ,  whilst  this  sacramental  and  mass-sacrifice  is  believed  to  be 
propitiatory,  and  sue! I  a  one  as  purgeth  the  souls,  both  of  the  quick 
and  the  dead.  Contrary  to  that  is  written  to  the  Hebrews,  '  With 
one  offering  hath  He  made  perfect  for  ever  them  that  are  sanctified.' 
And  again,  '  Where  remission  of  these  things  (that  is,  of  sins)  is, 
there  is  no  more  offering  for  sin." — p.  107. 

"  Latimer.  'By  His  own  Person  He  hath  purged  our  sins." 
These  words  '  by  His  own  Person,'  have  an  emphasis  or  vehemence, 
which  driveth  away  all  sacrificing  priests  from  such  office  of 
sacrificing  ;  seeing  that,  which  He  hath  done  by  Himself,  He  hath 
not  left  to  be  perfected  by  others  ;  so  that  the  purging  of  our  sins 
may  more  truly  be  thought  past  and  done,  than  a  thing  to  come  and 
to  be  done " — p.  107. 

"  Ridley.  *  Upon  the  which  vouchsafe  to  look  with  Thy  merciful 
and  cheerful  countenance.'  What  meaneth  this  prayer  for  the 
Sacrament  itself,  if  it  be,  as  they  say,  the  Body  of  Christ,  if  it  be 
God  and  man  ?  How  should  the  Father  not  look  with  a  cheerful 
countenance  upon  His  only  well-beloved  Son  ? '  — p.  109. 

"  Latimer.     To  this  let  them  answer,  that  so  pray;     except  per- 


43 

adventure,  this  prayer  was  used  long  before  it  was  esteemed  to  be 
the  Body  of  Christ  really  and  corporally.  And  then  this  prayer 
maketh  well  to  destroy  the  popish  opinion,  that  it  is  not  the  opinion 
of  the  Church,  nor  so  ancient  as  they  babble. . . ." — p.  109. 

To  turn  now  to  a  published  Treatise  of  Ridley,  in  "  A 
brief  Declaration  of  the  Lord's  Supper,"  &c.  A.D.  1555. 
Written  "  during  his  imprisonment." 

Having  quoted  St.  Matthew  xxvi.  26 — 30;  St.  Luke  xxii 
19  &  20  ;  1  Cor.  x.  16  &  17  ;  xi.  23—28 ;  and  argued  from 
these  passages — 

"  That  with  the  receipt  of  the  Holy  Sacrament  of  the  Blessed 
Body  and  Blood  of  Christ  is  received  of  every  one,  good  or  bad, 
either  life  or  death  ;  ....;"  he  declares  (p.  9.)  "  so  far  as  I  know, 
there  is  no  controversy  among  them  that  be  learned  among  the 
Church  of  England,  concerning  the  matter  of  this  Sacrament,  but 
all  do  agree,  whether  they  be  new  or  old ;  and  to  speak  plain,  and  as 
some  of  them  do  odiously  call  each  other,  whether  they  be  Protestants, 
Pharisees,  Papists,  or  Gospellers." — Works.  Parker  Society,  p.  9. 

Then  he  proceeds  (p.  11)  to  show 

"  Wherein  the  dissension  doth  stand ;  "  and  says,  "It  is  neither 
to  be  denied  nor  dissembled,  that  in  the  matter  of  this  Sacrament 
there  be  divers  points,  wherein  men  counted  to  be  learned  cannot 
agree  as, 

"  [a]  Whether  there  be  any  transubstantiation  of  the  bread  or  no? 

"  [6]  Any  corporal  and  carnal  presence  of  Christ's  substance, 

or  no  ? 

"  [c]  Whether  adoration,  only  due  unto   God,  is  to  be  done  unto 

the  Sacrament,  or  no  ? 

"[d]  And  whether  Christ's  Body  be  there  offered  in  deed  unto 
the  Heavenly  Father  by  the  priest,  or  no  ? 

"  [c]  Or  whether  the  evil  man  receiveth  the  natural  Body  of 
Christ,  or  no  ?" 

But  he  states  that 

"  ....  All  five  aforesaid  points  do  chiefly  hang  upon  this  one 
question,  which  is,  what  is  the  Matter  of  the  Sacrament,  whether 
it  is  the  natural  substance  of  bread,  or  the  natural  substance  or 
Christ's  own  Body  ?" 

"For,"  he  argues  "if  it  be  Christ's  own  natural  Body,  born  of 
the  Virgin  ;  then  assuredly  (seeing  that  all  learned  men  in  Eng- 
land, so  far  as  I  know,  both  new  and  old,  grant  there  to  be  but  one 
substance)  then,  I  say,  they  must  needs  grant 

"  [a\  transubstantiation,  that  is,  a  change  of  the  Substance  of 
bread  into  the  substance  of  Christ's  Body  : 

"  [6] the  carnal  and  corporal  presence  of  Christ's  Body  : 


44 

"  [c.]  then  must  the  Sacrament  be  adored  with  the  honour,  due 
unto  Christ  Himself,  for  the  unity  of  the  two  natures  in  one  Person  : 

"  [d~\  then,  if  the  Priest  do  ofTer  the  Sacrament,  he  doth  offer  in 
deed  Christ  Himself: 

"  [e]  and  finally,  the  murderer,  the  adulterer,  or  wicked  man, 
receiving  the  Sacrament  must  needs  then  receive  also  the  natural 
substance  of  Christ's  own  Blessed  Body,  both  Flesh  and  Blood. 

But  (p.  12.)  "  if,. .  .  .it  be  found  that  the  [natural]  substance  of 
bread  is  the  material  substance  of  the  Sacrament  [confessed  of  all 
that  be  named  to  learned,  so  far  as  I  do  know  m  England]  ;  although, 
for  the  change  of  the  use,  office,  and  dignity  of  the  bread,  the 
bread  indeed  sacramentally  is  changed  into  the  Body  of  Christ,  as 
the  water  in  baptism  is  sacramentally  changed  into  the  fountain  of 
regeneration,  and  yet  the  material  substance  remaineth  all  one,  as 
was  before  ; . . . .  then 

"  [a]  there  is  no  such  thing  indeed  and  in  truth  as  they  call 
transubstantiation,  for  the  substance  of  bread  remaineth  still  in  the 
Sacrament  of  the  Body  : 

"[&]  ..the  natural  substance  of  Christ's  human  nature,  which 
He  took  of  the  Virgin  Mary,  is  in  heaven,  where  it  reigneth  now  in 
glory,  and  not  here  inclosed  under  the  form  of  bread  : 

"  [e]  that  godly  honour,  which  is  only  due  unto  God  the  Creator, 
may  not  be  done  unto  the  creature  without  idolatry  and  sacrilege, 
is  not  to  be  done  unto  the  Holy  Sacrament : 

*'  [d~]  . . .  .Christ's  Blessed  Body  and  Blood,  which  was  once  only 
offered  and  shed  upon  the  Cross,  being  available  for  the   sins  of  alL 
the  whole  world,  is  offered  up  no  more  in   the  natural  substance 
thereof,  neither  by  the  priest,  nor  any  other  thing." 

"  [e]  the  wicked,  I  mean  the  impenitent,  murderer,  adulterer, 
or  such  like,  do  not  receive  the  natural  substance  of  the  Blessed 
Body  and  Blood  of  Christ : 

Before  going  on  to  prove  from  Holy  Scripture  "  the  truth" 
of  this,  he  anticipates  the  enquiry — 

"  Whether  they,  that  thus  make  answer   and  solution  unto  the 

former  principal  question,  do  take  away  simply  and  absolutely 
the  presence  of  Christ's  Body  and  Blood  from  the  Sacrament, 

ordained  by  Christ,  and  duly  ministered  according  to  His  holy 
ordinance  and  institution  of  the  same  ?"  and  replies  "  Undoubtedly, 
they  do  deny  that  utterly,  either  so  to  say  or  so  to  mean." — p.  12. 

And  refers  to  their  Books  for  proof. 
Moreover,  he  adds  (p.  1 3) — 

"  Now  then  you  will  say,  what  kind  of  presence  do  they  grant, 
and  what  do  they  deny  ?  Briefly,  they  deny  the  presence  of  Christ's 
Body  in  the  natural  substance  of  His  human  and  assumed  nature, 

and  grant   the  presence  of  the  same  by  grace Even  as,  for 

example,  we  say  the  same  sun,  which,  in  substance,  never  removeth 
his  place  out  of  the  heavens,  is  yet  present  here  by  its  beams,  light 


45 

and  natural  influence,  where  it  shineth  upon  the  earth.  For  God's 
Word  and  His  Sacraments  be,  as  it  were,  the  beams  of  Christ,  which 
is  sol  justitiae  (Mai.  iv.)  the  Sun  of  righteousness." 

From  the  account  of  the  Institution  given  by  the  Evange- 
lists and  St.  Paul,  he  argues  thus  (p.  15) 

"  So  it  appeareth  plainly  that  Christ  called  very  bread  His  Body. 
But  very  bread  cannot  be  His  Body,  in  Very  substance  thereof:" 
yet  it  "  retaining  still  its  own  very  natural  Substance,  may  be  thus 
by  grace,  and  in  a  sacramental  signification,  His  Body  :  whereas 
else  the  very  bread,  which  He  took,  brake,  and  gave  them,  could 
not  be  in  any  wise  His  natural  Body,  for  that  were  confusion  of 
substances.  And  therefore  the  very  words  of  Christ,  joined  with 
the  next  sentence  following,  both  enforce  us  to  confess  the  very 
bread  to  remain  still,  and  also  open  unto  us  how  that  ,bread  may  be 
and  is  thus,  by  His  Divine  Power,  His  Body  which  was  given  for 
us."— p.  15. 

Then  he  proceeds  to  argue  similarly  "  of  the  Lord's  Cup," 
from  the  words  of  Institution. 

And  ends  by  supporting  his  arguments  with  the  following 
Patristic  authorities. — Oriyen,  in  Matt.  xxv.  Horn  11  ;  Horn, 
super  Levit.  vii. ;  S.  Chrysostom,  in  Matt.  Horn.  xi.  (Op. 
imp.)  Ep.  ad  Caes.  Mon. ;  Theodoret,  Dial.  1  and  2,  cont. 
Eut. ;  Tertullian,  Adv.  Marc.  iv.  c.  40,  and  i.  c.  14. ;  St. 
Augustine,  cont.  Faust,  xx.  c.  21  ;  Ps.  xcviii ;  de  Fide  ad 
Petrum,  c.  19;  Ps.  iii.  Ep.  xxiii.  Quaest.  lib.  iii.  Ep.  cii. 
Cont.  Max.  lib.  ii.  c.  22.  Tract,  in  Johan.  c.  12.* 

We  come  now  to  an  important  occurrence,  considering  who 
was  the  chief  person  in  it,  namely  Cranmer's  "  Disputation  at 
Oxford,"  April  16th,  1555. 

The  Articles  to  be  disputed  were  these : — 

"  I.  In  the  Sacrament  of  the  Altar  is  the  natural  Body  of  Christ 
conceived  of  the  Virgin  Mary,  and  also  His  Blood,  present  really 
under  the  forms  of  bread  and  wine,  by  virtue  of  God's  word  pro- 
nounced by  the  Priest. 

"  II.  There  remaineth  no  substance  of  bread  and  wine  after 
the  consecration,  nor  any  other  substance  but  the  substance  of 
(Christ)  God  and  Man. 

"  III.  The  lively  sacrifice  of  the  Church  is  in  the  Mass,  pro- 
pitiatory as  well  for  the  quick  as  the  dead." — Works.  Parker 
Society,  vol.  ii.  p.  394. 

In  answer  to  Chedsey,  who  said  "  His  true  Body  is  in 
the  Sacrament,"  it  was  replied  by  Cranmer  : — 


The  passages  are  most  of  them  in  Dr.  Ptisey's  Catena.     The  Parker  So- 
ty's   Editor    has   coll 
Ridley  had  partly  done. 


ciety's   Editor    has    collated    them,   distinguishing  the    doubtful,    as   in    fact 


46 

"  His  true  Body  is  truly  present  to  them  that  truly  receive  Him  r 

but  spiritually.    And  so  is  It  taken  after  a  spiritual  sort.    For 

when  He  said,  *  This  is  My  Body,'  it  is  all  one  as  if  He  had  said — 
This  is  the  breaking  of  My  Body  ;  this  is  the  shedding  of  My 
Blood  :  as  oft  as  you  shall  do  this,  it  shall  put  you  in  remembrance 
of  the  breaking  of  My  Body,  and  the  shedding  of  My  Blood  ;  that 
as  truly  as  you  receive  this  Sacrament,  so  truly  shall  you  receive  the 
benefit  promised  by  receiving  the  same  worthily. 

'*  CTiedsey.  Your  opinion  differeth  from  the  Church,  which  saith, 
that  the  true  Body  is  in  the  Sacrament :  Ergo — your  opinion  there- 
in is  false. 

"  Cranmer.  I  say  and  agree  with  the  Church,  that  the  Body  of 
Christ  is  in  the  Sacrament  effectually,  because  the  passion  of 

Christ  is  effectual, 

"  Chedsey.  Christ,  when  He  spake  these  words,  '  This  is  My 
Body,'  spake  of  the  substance,  but  not  of  the  effect 

"  Cranmer.  I  grant  He  spake  of  the  substance,  and  not  of  the 
effect,  after  a  sort :  and  yet  it  is  most  true,  that  the  Body  of  Christ 
is  effectually  in  the  Sacrament.  But  I  deny  that  He  is  there 
truly  present  in  bread,  or  that  under  the  Bread  in  [?  is]  His 
org'anical  Body  .  .  .  ," — Writings  and  Disputations  of 
Cranmer,  Parker  Society  1844,  p.  394. 

Then  Cranmer  handed  up  a  written  reply,  in  which  he 
said : — 

"  In  the  first  conclusion,  if  ye  understand  by  this  word  '  really,' 
re  ipsa,  i.e.  *  in  very  deed  and  effectually,'  so  Christ,  by  the  grace 
and  efficacy  of  His  Passion,  is  in  deed  and  truly  present  to  all  His 
true  and  holy  members. 

"  But  if  ye  understand  by  this  word  *  really,'  corporaliter,  i.e. 
'corporally,'  so  that  by  the  Body  of  Christ  is  understanded  a 

natural  Body  and  org'anical," 

this  he  declared  to  he  opposed  to  the  Scriptures  and  the 
Catholic  Church,  which  affirm — 

"Christ  to  have  left  the  world,  and  to  sit  at  the  Right  Hand  of 
the  Father  till  He  come  to  judgment." 

The  2nd  and  3rd  Propositions  he  said  also  differed  from  the 
"accustomed  manner  and  speech  of  Scripture." 

Chedsey  held  this  to  mean — 

"  the  Body  of  Christ  to  be  in  the  Sacrament  only  by  the  way  of 
participation,  insomuch  as  we  communicating  thereof,  do  participate 
the  grace  of  Christ ;  so  that  you  mean  hereby  only  the  effect 
thereof.  But  our  conclusion  standeth  upon  the  substance,  and  not 
the  efficacy  only.  .  .  .  .  . 

"  Cranmer.  Thus  you  gather  upon  mine  answer  as  though  I  did 
mean  of  the  efficacy  and  not  of  the  substance  of  the  Body  ;  but  I 
mean  of  them  both,  as  well  of  the  efficacy  as  of  the  substance. 


47 

And  forsomuch  as  all  things  come  not  readily  to  memory,  to  a  man 
that  shall  speak  extempore,  therefore  for  the  more  ample  and  fuller 
answer  in  this  matter,  this  writing  here  do  I  exhibit." — pp.  395-6. 

In  this  writing  Cranmer  states — 

I.  That  "  Christ  at  the  time  of  His  Maunday . .  .  .did  institute  a 
perpetual  memory  of  this  His  death,  to  be  celebrated  among  Chris- 
tians in  bread  and  wine  ; The  Sacrament  and  Mystical  Bread 

being  broken  and  distributed  after  the  institution  of  Christ,  and  the 
mystical  wine  likewise  being  taken  and  received,  be  not  only 
Sacraments  of  the  flesh  of  Christ  wounded  for  us,  and  of  His  blood- 
shedding,  but  also  be  most  certain  Sacraments  to  us,  and,  as  a  man 
would  say,  seals  of  God's  promises  and  gifts,  and  also  of  that  holy 
fellowship  which  we  have  with  Christ  and  all  His  members.  More- 
over they  be  to  us  memorials  of  that  heavenly  food  and  nourishment 
wherewith  we  are  nourished  unto  eternal  life,  and  the  thirst  of  our 
boiling  conscience  quenched,  and,  finally,  whereby  the  hearts  of  the 
faithful  be  replenished  with  unspeakable  joy,  and  be  corroborated 
and  strengthened  unto  all  works  of  godliness.  *  We  are  many,'  saith 
St.  Paul,  *  one  Bread  and  one  Body,  all  we  which  do  participate  of 
one  bread  and  cup.'  And  Christ  saith  *  Eat  ye  ;  this  is  My  Body  :* 
and,  '  Drink  ye  ;  this  is  My  Blood  :'  and,  '  I  am  the  Living  Bread 
which  came  down  from  Heaven.  He  that  eateth  me  shall  also  live 
for  me.  Not  as  your  fathers  did  eat  manna  in  the  desert,  and  are 
dead.  He  that  eateth  Me  shall  also  live  for  Me.'  Thus  therefore 
true  bread  and  true  wine  remain  still  in  the  Eucharist,  until  they  be 
consumed  of  the  faithful,  to  be  signs,  and  as  seals  unto  us,  annexed 
unto  God's  promises,  making  us  certain  of  God's  gifts  towards  us. 
Also  Christ  remaineth  in  them,  and  they  in  Christ,  which  eat  His 
flesh  and  drink  His  blood,  as  Christ  Himself  hath  promised  :  '  they 
that  eat  My  flesh  and  drink  My  blood,  abide  in  Me,  and  I  in  them.' 
Moreover,  He  abideth  also  in  them  which  worthily  receiveth  the 
outward  Sacrament ;  neither  doth  He  depart  so  soon  as  the  Sacra- 
ment is  consumed,  but  continually  abideth,  feeding  and  nourishing 
us  so  long  as  we  remain  bodies  of  that  Head,  and'  members  of  the 
same.  I  acknowledge  not  here  the  natural  Body  of  Christ,  which 
is  only  spiritual,  intelligible,  and  unsensible,  having  no  distinction 
of  members  and  parts  in  it ;  but  that  Body  only  I  acknowledge  and 
worship,  which  was  born  of  the  Virgin,  which  suffered  for  us,  which 
is  visible,  palpable,  and  hath  all  the  form  and  shape  and  parts  of  the 
true  natural  body  of  man." 

"2 the  old  doctors  do  call   this  speaking  of  Christ  [i.e. 

f  Take,  eat,'  &c.]  tropical,  figurative,  anagogical,  allegorical  ;  which 
they  do  interpret  after  this  sort,  that  although  the  substance  of 
bread  and  wine  do  remain,  and  be  received  of  the  faithful,  yet 
notwithstanding,  Christ  changed  the  appellation  thereof,  and  called 
the  bread  by  the  name  of  His  Flesh,  and  the  wine  by  the  name  of 
His  Blood,  non  rei  veritatet  sed  significante  mysterio  ;  i.e.  '  not  that 
it  is  so  in  very  deed,  but  signified  in  a  mystery ;'  so  that  we 


48 

should  consider,  not  what  they  be  in  their  own  nature,  but  what  they 
do  import  to  us  and  signify  ;  and  should  understand  the  Sacrament, 
not  carnally,  but  spiritually  ;  and  should  attend,  not  to  the  visible 
nature  of  the  Sacraments,  neither  have  respect  only  to  the  outward 
bread  and  cup,  thinking  to  see  there  with  our  eyes  no  other  things 
but  only  bread  and  wine  ;  but  that,  lifting  up  our  minds,  we  should 
look  up  to  the  Blood  of  Christ  with  our  faith,  should  touch  Him 
with  our  mind,  and  receive  Him  with  our  inward  man ;  arid  that, 
being  like  eagles  in  this  life,  we  should  fly  up  into  Heaven  in  our 
hearts,  where  that  Lamb  is  resident  at  the  Right  Hand  of  His 

Father,  which  taketh  away  the  sins  of  the  world 

"3.  The  only  oblation  of  Christ  (....upon  the  Altar  of  the 
Cross . , . . )  was  of  such  efficacy,  that  there  is  no  more  need  of  any 

sacrifice  for  the  Redemption  of  the  whole  world Whosoever 

shall   seek   any   other    Sacrifice   propitiatory  for    sin,   maketh    the 

Sacrifice  of  Christ  of  no  validity,  force,  or  efficacy " 

—pp.  396-9. 

After  this  they  proceeded  again  to  argue,  Chedsey  de- 
claring— 

"That  the  natural  Body  is  in  the  Sacrament." 

Cranmer  replied.  "To  your  argument  I  answer  :  If  you  understand 
by  the  Body  natural,  organicum,  that  is,  having  such  proportion 
and  members  as  He  had  living  here,  then  I  answer  negatively. 

Chedsey  then  argued  from  the  words  of  Institution  : — 

"  That  thing  is  here  contained  that  is  given  for  us  : 
"  But  the  substance  of  bread  is  not  given  for  us  : 
"  Ergo.     The  substance  of  bread  is  not  here  contained. 
"  Cranmer.     I  understand  not  yet  what  you  mean  by  this  word 
*  contained :'  if  ye  mean  really,  then  I  deny  your  major. 

"  Chedsey.  If  you  ask  what  is  the  thing  therein  contained  ; 
because  His  Apostles  should  not  doubt  what  Body  it  was  that  should 
be  given,  He  saith  :  *  This  is  My  Body  which  shall  be  given  for 
you,'  and  '  My  Blood  which  shall  be  shed  for  many.'  Ergo,  here  is 
the  Same  substance  of  the  Body,  which  the  day  after  was  given, 
and  the  Same  BlOOd  which  was  shed.  And  here  I  urge  the 
Scripture,  which  teacheth  that  it  was  no  phantastical,  no  feigned,  no 
Spiritual  Body,  nor  Body  in  faith,  but  the  Substance  of  the  Body. 

"  Cranmer.  You  must  prove  that  it  is  contained ;  but  Christ 
said  not,  'which  is  contained.'  He  gave  bread,  and  called  that  His 
Body.  I  stick  not  in  the  words  of  the  Scripture,  but  in  your  word, 
which  is  feigned  and  imagined  of  yourself." — p.  400. 

Weslon  then  quoted  S.  Chrys.,  Horn.  Ixi.  ad  Pop.  Antioch 
"Necessarium  esb"  &c.,  and  argued  from  it  thus: — 

"  The  same  flesh,  whereby  Christ  is  made  our  brother  and 
kinsman,  is  given  of  Christ  to  us  to  be  eaten  :" 


49 

"  Christ  is  made  our  brother  and  kinsman  by  His  true,  natural, 

and  org'anical  flesh : 

"  Ergo.  His  true,  natural,  and  Ol'g'anical  flesh  is  given  to  us 
to  be  eaten. 

"  Cranmer.     I  grant  the  consequence  and  the  consequent. 
"  Weston.     Therefore  we  eat  it  with  our  mouth. 
"  Cranmer.     I  deny  it.     We  eat  it  through  faith. 

Weston  repeated  his  argument;  to  which  it  was  replied  by 
"  Cranmer.    I  grant  He  took  and  gave  the  Same  true,  natural, 

and  organical  flesh  wherein  He  suffered ;  and  yet  He  feedeth 

Spiritually,  and  that  flesh  is  received  spiritually. 

"  Weston.  He  gave  us  the  same  flesh  which  He  took  of  the 
Virgin  : 

"  But  He  took  not  His  true  flesh  of  the  Virgin  spiritually,  or 

in  a  figure  : 

"  Ergo.    He  gave  His  true,  natural  flesh,  not  spiritually. 

"  Cranmer.  Christ  gave  to  us  His  own  natural  flesh,  the  same 
wherein  He  suffered,  but  feedeth  us  spiritually."— pp.  402  &  3. 

"  Weston.  When  Christ  said  *  Eat  ye/  whether  meant  He,  by 
the  mouth  or  by  faith  ? 

"  Cranmer.  He  meant  that  we  should  receive  the  Body  by 
faith,  the  bread  by  the  mouth." 

"  Weston.     Nay,  the  Body  by  the  mouth." 

"  Cranmer.     That  I  deny."  ' 

In  proof,  Weston  quoted  St.  Chrys.  on  Ps.  50  "  Erubescit 
fieri  nutrix,  &c.,  and  Horn.  83  on  St.  Matt.  26,  "  Non  enim 
sufficit"  &c.  Cranmer  replied — 

"  I  grant  we  make  one  nature  with  Christ :  but  that  to  be  done 
with  the  mouth  we  deny." 

"  Weston.  Chrysostom,  2  Cor.,  cap.  xiii.  Horn.  29  hath  these 
words :  ....  '  No  little  honour  is  given  to  our  mouth,  receiving  the 
Body  of  the  Lord.' 

"  Cranmer.  This  I  say,  that  Christ  entereth  into  us  both  by  our 
ears  and  by  our  eyes.  With  our  mouth  we  receive  the  Body  of 
Christ,  and  tear  it  with  our  teeth  ;  that  is  to  say,  the  Sacrament  of 
the  Body  of  Christ.  Wherefore  I  say  and  affirm,  that  the  virtue  of 
the  Sacrament  is  much :  and  therefore  Chrysostom  many  times 
speaketh  of  Sacraments  no  otherwise  than  of  Christ  Himself,  as  I 
could  prove,  if  I  might  have  liberty  to  speak,  by  many  places  of 
Chrysostom,  where  he  speaketh  of  the  Sacrament  of  the  Body  of 
Christ." 

"  Cole denied  it  to  be  the  Sacrament  of  the  Body  of  Christ, 

save  only  of  the  mystical  Body,  which  is  the  Church." 

Cranmer  defended  his  position  by  S.  Chrys.  de  Sacerd. 
lib.  3,  c.  iii. — 

H 


50 

"  O  miracle  !  O  the  good-will  of  God  towards  us!  which  sitteth 
above  at  the  right  hand  of  the  Father,  and  is  holden  in  men's  hands 
at  the  sacrifice  time,  and  is  given  to  feed  upon,  to  them  that  are 
desirous  of  Him.  And  that  is  brought  to  pass  by  no  subtlety  or 
craft,  but  with  the  open  and  beholding  eyes  of  all  the  standers-by." 

Upon  which  Cranmer  remarked — 

"  Thus  you  hear  Christ  is  here  in  earth  every  day,  is  touched,  is 
torn  with  the  teeth,  that  our  tongue  is  red  with  His  blood  ;  which 
no  man  having  any  judgment  will  say  or  think  to  be  spoken  without 
trope  or  figure." — pp.  404  &  5. 

Weston  then  quoted  S.  Chrys.,  Horn.  24 — 

"  I  shew  forth  that  thing  on  the  earth  unto  thee,  which  is  worthy  the 
greatest  honour,"  &c.,  and  argued  (together  with  Cole  and  Chedsey) 
"that  the  Body  of  Christ  is  shewed  us  upon  the  earth,"  in  "Sllb- 

stance,"  not  in  "figure,"  "not  sacra  mentally  only,  but  in  very 

deed  also  ;"  is   touched    "as  Thomas  touched  Christ,"   touching 
whom  he  touched  "the  Lord  God.'  " 

Cranmer  contended  that,  though 

"  in  the  Sacrament  only"  was  That  to  be  seen  which  is  "  worthy 
greatest  honour,"  yet  Christ  is  not  seen  "upon  the  earth"  save 
"with  the  eyes  of  our  mind,  with  faith  and  spirit;"  that  Christ  is 
touched  in  the  Sacrament  in  the  same  sense  as  Thomas  touched 
God,  of  whom  it  is  not  "sound  doctrine  to  affirm,  that  God  is 
touched."— pp.  405-7 

Cranmer  uses  the  expression  f<  He  touched  not  God,  but 
Him  which  was  God :"  yet,  looking  at  the  nature  of  his 
argument,  and  considering  the  unreserved  way  in  which  he 
had  just  before  adopted  St.  Chrysostom's  strong  expressions  as 
to  the  Eucharist,  he  would  seem  sufficiently  shielded  from 
any  accusation  of  Nestorianism:  not  to  say  that  elsewhere 
his  writings  are  an  adequate  defence. 

His  opponents  then  pressed  him  with  Tertullian,  De 
Resurrection  e,  Carnis,  c.  viii.  "Fideamus  de  propria  Chris- 
tiani  hominis  forma"  &c.  and  Photius  on  1  Cor.  xi,  27, 
arguing  from  them  thus  : — 

"The  flesh  eateth  Christ's  Body,  that  the  soul  may  be  fed 
therewith  : 

"  The  soul  is  not  fed  with  the  Sacrament,  but  with  Christ's  Body. 
"  Ergo.     The  flesll  eateth  the  body  of  Christ." 

To  which  Cranmer  answered  : — 

"The  Sacrament  is  one  thing;  the  matter  of  the  Sacrament  is 
another.  Outwardly  we  receive  the  Sacrament ;  inwardly  we  eat 


51 

the  body  of  Christ."  And  again  "  the  flesh,  I  say,  eateth  the 
Sacrament ;  it  eateth  not  Christ's  body.  For  Tertullian  speaketh 
of  the  Sacrament ;  and  the  place  hath  not  inde  i  thereof/  but  de 
Deo  «  of  God.'  "—pp.  407-9. 

After  some  dispute  on  a  passage  of  St.  Hilary,  de  Trin. 
lib.  viii.  Young  said — 

"  Against  him  that  denieth  principles  we  must  not  dispute. 
Therefore  that  we  may  agree  of  the  principles,  I  demand  whether 
there  be  any  other  Body  of  Christ  than  His  instrumental  Body  ? 

Cranmer.  "  There  is  no  natural  Body  of  Christ  but  His 
organic-ill  Body.''— p.  414. 

An  argument  then  arose  touching  what  Christ  did  in  the 
Institution  of  the  Eucharist,  in  the  course  of  which  Young 
asked — 

"  The  thing  signified  in  the  Sacrament,  is  it  not  in  that  Sacra- 
ment ?"  Cranmer.  "  It  is.  For  the  thing  is  ministered  in  a  sign. 
He  followeth  the  letter  that  taketh  the  thing  for  the  sign.  Augus- 
tine separateth  the  Sacrament  from  the  thing.  '  The  Sacrament,' 
saith  he,  •  is  one,  and  the  thing  of  the  Sacrament  another.' " — 
p.  415. 

Again,  Pie  said — 

"  The  words  of  Christ,  as  Ambrose  saith,  are  of  strength  to  work. 
What  do  they  work  ?  Ambrose  saith,  they  make  the  Blood  which 
redeemed  the  people  : 

"  Ergo.     The  natural  Blood  is  made. 

"  Cranmer.  The  Sacrament  of  His  Blood  is  made.  The  words 
make  the  Blood  to  them  that  receive  it  :  not  that  the  Blood  is  in  the 
cup,  but  in  the  receiver." 

This  expression  being  demurred  to,  Cranmer  referred  to 
S.  Ambrose  de  Sacramentis  1.  iv.,  c.  iv.  (which  Weston 
quoted)  and  remarked — 

"  . . . .  But  what  is  that  He  saith  :  Thou  receivest  for  a  similitude  ?' 
I  think  he  understandeth  the  Sacrament  to  be  the  similitude  of  His 
Blood."— p.  418. 

Again,  Chedsey  argued — 

"As  Christ  is  truly  and  really  incarnate,  so  is  He  truly  and 
really  in  the  Sacrament : 

"  But  Christ  is  really  and  truly  incarnate  : 

"  Ergo.  The  Body  of  Christ  is  truly  and  really  in  the  Sacra- 
ment." 

"  Cranmer.     I  deny  the  major." 

'«  Chedsey.  I  prove  the  major  out  of  Justine,  in  his  Second 
Apology *  As  by  the  word  of  God  Jesus  Christ  our  Saviour 


52 

being  made  flesh  had  both  Flesh  and  Blood  for  our  salvation ;  so  we 
are  taught,  that  the  meat  consecrated  by  the  word  of  prayer  instituted 
of  Him,  whereby  our  blood  and  flesh  are  nourished  by  communion, 
is  the  Flesh  and  Blood  of  the  same  Jesus  which  was  made  flesh.'  " 

"  Cranmer.  You  have  translated  it  well ;  but  I  deny  your  major. 
This  is  the  sense  of  Justin  ;  that  that  bread  is  called  the  Body  of 
Christ,  and  yet  of  that  sanctified  meat  our  bodies  are  nourished." 

"  Chedsey.  Nay,  he  saith,  of  that  sanctified  meat  both  our  bodies 
and  souls  are  nourished." 

"  Cranmer.  He  saith  not  so ;  but  he  saith  that  it  nourisheth  our 
flesh  and  blood :  and  how  can  that  nourish  the  soul,  that  nourisheth 
the  flesh  and  blood  ?" 

"  Cole.     It  feedeth  the  body  by  the  soul." 

"  Cranmer.  Speak  uprightly.  Can  that  which  is  received  by 
the  soul  and  the  spirit,  be  called  the  meat  of  the  body?" — p.  420. 

4<  Cranmer.  We  ought  not  to  consider  the  bare  bread  ;  but 
whosoever  cometh  to  the  Sacrament,  eateth  the  true  Body  of  Christ." 
—p.  421. 

Lastly,  we  shall  do  well  to  consider  attentively  the 

"  Disputation   at   Oxford  between    Dr.    Smith,   with  his 

other  colleagues  and  Doctors,  and  Bishop   Ridley."     A.D. 

1555. 

"  Wesion,  the  Prolocutor.  Good  Christian  people  and  brethren, 

we ai^e  entering  into  a  controversy, concerning  the 

verity  of  the  Body  of  our  Lord  Jesu  Christ  in  the  Eucharist. .  . . 

"  Dr.  Smith.  This  day,  right  learned  Master  Doctor,  three 
questions  are  propounded to  wit : 

"  First.  Whether  the  natural  Body  of  Christ  our  Saviour,  con- 
ceived of  the  Virgin  Mary,  and  offered  for  man's  redemption  on  the 
Cross,  is  verily  and  really  in  the  Sacrament  by  virtue  of  God's 
word  spoken  by  the  priests,  &c. 

"  Secondly.  Whether  in  the  Sacrament,  after  the  words  of  con- 
secration, be  any  other  Substance,  &c. 

"Thirdly.  Whether  in  the  mass  be  a  sacrifice  propitiatory,  &c. 

"  Touching  the  which  questions ....  I  will  essay  again  to  demand 
your  sentence  in  the  first  question — whether  the  true  Body  of 
Christ,  after  the  words  pronounced,  be  really  in  the  Eucharist,  or 
else  only  the  figure —pp.  191-2. 

Ridley  then  protests  his  submission  to  the  Church,  his  lack 
of  time  and  books,  and  his  right  to  correct  his  statements 
afterwards* 

*'  The  First  Proposition. 

"  In  the  Sacrament  of  the  Altar,  by  the  virtue  of  God's  word 
spoken  of  the  priest,  the  natural  Body  of  Christ,  born  of  the  Virgin 
Mary,  and  His  natural  Blood,  are  really  present  under  the  forms  of 
bread  and  wine. 


53 

Ridley  complains  (1)  that  this  statement 

"  is  very  obscure  and  dark,  by  means  of  sundry  words  of  doubt- 
ful signification.  And  being  taken  in  the  sense  which  the  school- 
men teach,  and  at  this  time  the  Church  of  Rome  doth  defend,  it  is 
false  and  erroneous. .  . ." — p.  195. 

(ii.)     Of  the 

"  ambiguity  in  this  word  '  really/  whether  it  be  to  be  taken  as 
the  logicians  term  it '  transcendenter  ;'  that  is,  most  generally :  and  so 
it  may  signify  any  manner  Of  tiling  which  belongeth  to  the  Body 
of  Christ,  by  any  means :  after  which  sort  we  also  grant  Christ's 
Body  to  be  really  in  the  Sacrament  of  the  Lord's  Supper ....  or 

whether  it  be  taken  to  signify  the  very  same  thing,  having  body, 
life,  and  soul,  which  was  assumed  and  taken  of  the  word  of 
God  unto  the  unity  of  person.  In  which  sense,  since  the 

Body  of  Christ  is  really  in  Heaven,  because  of  the  true  manner  of 
His  Body,  it  may  not  be  said  to  be  here  in  the  earth." — p.  196. 

(iii.)     Of  the 

"  further  doubtfulness  in  these  words,  '  under  the  forms  of  bread 
and  wine,'  whether  the  forms  be  there  taken  to  signify  the  only 
accidental  and  outward  shews  of  bread  and  wine  ;  or  therewithal 
the  Substantial  natures  thereof,  which  are  to  be  seen  by  their 
qualities,  and  perceived  by  exterior  senses.  Now  the  error  and 

falseness  of  the  proposition,  after  the  sense  of  the  Roman  Church 

and  Schoolmen,  may  hereby  appear,  in  that  they  affirm  the  bread 
to  be  transubstantiated  and  changed  into  the  flesh  assumed  of  the 

Word  of  God and  so  they  gather  that  Christ's  Body  is  really 

contained  in  the  Sacrament  of  the  Altar " — p.  196. 

In  "  Confirmation  of  the  aforesaid  Answer"  he  puts  a  syllo- 
gism, one  proposition  of  which  is  that 

"  This  doctrine,"  which  he  opposes,  "maintaineth  a  real,  corporal 
and  carnal  presence  of  Christ's  Flesh,  assumed  aad  taken  of  the 
word,  to  be  in  the  Sacrament  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  and  that  not 
by  Virtue  and  grace  only,  but  also  by  the  whole  essence  and 
Substance  of  the  Body  and  Flesh  of  Christ." — p.  197. 

He  goes  on  to  argue  that — 

"  This  camal  presence  is  contrary  '  to  '  St.  John  xvi.  7 ;  Acts 
iii.  21;  St.  Matt.  ix.  15;  St.  John  xvi.  22;  xiv.  iii.;  St.  Matt. 
xxiv.  23,  28. 

(ii.)     Varies  from  the  Creed  *'  He  ascended,"  &c. 

(iii.J  "  It  destroyeth  and  taketh  away  the  Institution. .  .  .which 

was to  be  used  and  continued  until  the  Lord  himself  shall 

come for  a  remembrance  is  not  of  a  thing  present,  but  of  a 

thing  past  and  absent as  one  of  the  Fathers  saith  *  A 

figure  is  in  vain  when  the  thing  figured  is  present.' 

(iv.)  " it  affirmeth  that the  wicked  and  faithless, 

mice,  cats,  and  dogs  also  may  receive  the  very  real  and  corporal 
Body  of  the  Lord 


(v.)  "  It  confirmeth that. .  . .  cruelty  of  the  '  Anthro- 
pophagi ' for  it  is  a  more  cruel  thing  to  devour  a  quick  man 

than  to  slay  him. 

(vi.)  "  It  forceth  men  to  maintain  many  monstrous  miracles,"  e.g.. 
"that  the  accidents  remain  without  any  subject,"  also  "  Christ's  Body 
without  His  qualities,  and  the  true  manner  of  a  body,"  &c. 

(vii.)  It  gives  occasion  to  such  heresies  as  those  of  Marcion  and 
Eutyches. 

(viii.)  "  It  falsifieth  the  sayings  of  the  godly  Fathers  ....  Justin, 
Irenseus,  Tertulliau,  Origen,  Eusebius,  Emissenus,  Athanasius,  Cyril, 
Epiphanius,  Jerome,  Chrysostom,  Augustine,  Vigilius,  Fulgentius, 
Bertram,  and  other  most  ancient  Fathers." — pp.  198-201. 

Next  he  proceeds  to  deny  that  he  intends 

"  To  take  away  the  tllie  presence  of  Christ's  Body  in  His  Supper 
rightly  and  duly  ministered,  which  is  grounded  upon  the.  word  of 
God,  and  made  more  plain  by  the  commentaries  of  the  faithful 
fathers " 

"  I  say  and  confess  with  the  Evangelist  Luke,  and  with  the 
Apostle  Paul,  that  the  bread  on  the  which  thanks  are  given,  is  the 
Body  of  Christ  in  the  remembrance  of  Him  and  His  death,  to  be  set 
forth  perpetually  of  the  faithful  until  His  coming. 

"  I  say  and  confess,  the  bread  which  we  break  to  be  the  com- 
munion and  partaking  of  Christ's  Body,  with  the  ancient  and 
faithful  fathers. 

"  I  say  and  believe,  that  there  is  not  only  a  signification  of  Christ's 
Body  set  forth  by  the  Sacrament,  but  also  that  therewith  IS  given 
to  the  godly  and  faithful  the  grace  of  Christ's  Body,  that  is,  the 
food  of  life  and  immortality.  And  this  I  hold  with  Cyprian. 

"  I  say  also  with  St.  Augustine,  that  we  eat  life  and  we  drink 
life ;  'with  Emissene,  that  we  feel  the  Lord  to  be  present  in  grace  ; 
with  Athanasius,  that  we  receive  celestial  food,  which  cometh  from 
above  j  the  property  of  natural  communion,  with  Hilary ;  the 
nature  of  flesh*  and  benediction  which  giveth  life,  in  bread  and 
wine,  with  Cyril ;  and  with  the  same  Cyril,  the  virtue  of  the  very 
flesh  of  Christ,  life  and  grace  of  His  Body,  the  property  of  the 
Only  Begotten,  that  is  to  say,  life ;  as  He  Himself  in  plain  words 
expoundeth  it. 

"  I  confess  also  with  Basil,  that  we  receive  the  mystical  advent 
and  coming  of  Christ,  grace  and  the  virtue  of  His  very  nature  ;  the 
sacrament  of  His  very  Flesh,  with  Ambrose  ;  the  Body  by  grace, 
with  Epiphanius :  spiritual  flesh,  but  not  that  which  was  crucified, 
with  Jerome ;  grace  flowing  into  a  sacrifice,  and  the  grace  of  the 
Spirit,  with  Chrysostom  ;  grace  and  invisible  verity,  grace  and 
society  of  the  members  of  Christ's  Body,  with  Augustine. 

"  Finally,  with  Bertram I  confess  that  Christ's  Body  is  in 

the  Sacrament  in  this  respect ;  namely,  as  he  writeth,  because  there 
is  in  it  the  Spirit  Of  Christ,  that  is,  the  power  of  the  word  of  God, 
which  not  only  feedeth  the  soul,  but  also  cleanseth  it.  Out  of  these 
1  suppose  it  may  clearly  appear  unto  all  men,  how  far  we  are  from 


55 

that  opinion,  whereof  some  go  about  falsely  to  slander  us  to  the 
world,  saying,  we  teach  that  the  godly  and  faithful  should  receive 
nothing  else  at  the  Lord's  table,  but  a  figure  of  the  Body  of  Christ." 
—pp.  201  &  2. 

"  The  Second  Proposition. 

"  After  the  consecration  there  remaineth  no  substance  of  bread 
and  wine,  neither  any  other  substance,  than  the  substance  of  God 
and  man." 

For  the  answer  to  this  he  refers  to  his  arguments  against 
Prop.  1,  and  strongly  insists  upon  the  authority  of  Bertram 
as  supporting  him. 

"  The  Third  Proposition. 

•   <l  In  the  Mass  is  the  lively  sacrifice  of  the   Church,  propitiable 
and  available  for  the  sins  as  well  of  quick  as  of  the  dead-" 

Ridley  objects  (1)  that  in  the 

"Words  'the  lively  sacrifice  of  the  Church,'  there  is  a  doubt  ' 
whether  they  are  to  be  understood  figuratively  and  sacramentally, 
for  the  sacrament  of  the  lively  sacrifice  (after  which  sort  we  deny 
it  not  to  be  in  the  Lord's  Supper),  or  properly  and  without  any 
figure  :  after  the  which  manner  there  was  but  one  only  sacrifice,  and 
that  once  offered,  namely,  upon  the  Altar  of  the  Cross. 

(ii.)  "  There  is  also  a  doubt  in  the  word  '  propitiable,'  whether  it 
signify  here,  that  which  taketh  away  sin,  or  that  which  may  be  made 
available  [orig.  an  quod  potest  reddi  propitium.  ED.]  for  the  taking 
away  of  sin  ;  that  is  to  say,  whether  it  is  to  be  taken  in  the  active  or 
in  the  passive  signification. 

(iii.)     That  "  the    words    seem  to   import the  quick  and 

lively  body  of  Christ,  flesh,  united  and  knit  to  the  Divinity,  to  lie  hid 
under  the  accidents  and  outward  shews  of  bread  and  wine. . . " — p.  207 
Among  his  Arguments  against  the  proposition  are  these  : — 
(a)     "  All  remission  of  sins  cometh  only  by  shedding  of  blood. 
"  In  the  Mass  there  is  no  shedding  of  blood  : 
"  Ergo,  in  the  Mass  there  is  no  remission  of  sins  ;  and  so  it 

followeth  also,  that  there  is  no  propitiatory  sacrifice. 
(6)     "  In  the  Mass  the  passion  of  Christ  is  not  in  verity,  but  in  a 

mystery  representing  the  same. 
"  But  where  Christ  Sllfferetll  not,  there  He  is  not  offered  in 

verity. 

"  Ergo,  in  the  Mass  there  is  no  propitiatory  sacrificed. . .  •  •" 
—p.  209. 

Dr.  Smithy  in  reply,  objected  to  Ridley's  argument — that 
Christ's  Ascension  and  Session  "  hinder  not  his  REAL  presence 
in  the  Sacrament." 

Ridley.  " If  you  take  the  real  presence  of  Christ  accord- 
ing to  the  real  and  corporal  substance  which  He  took  of  the  Virgin, 
THAT  Presence  being  in  Heaven,  cannot  be  on  the  earth  also.  But,  if 
you  mean  a  real  presence  '  secundum  rem  aliquam  quae  ad  corpus 


56 

Christi  pertinet,'  i.  e.  according  to  something  that  appertaineth  to 
Christ's  Body,  certes  the  ascension  and  abiding  in  Heaven  are  no 
let  at  all  to  that  presence.  Wherefore  Christ's  Body,  after  that  sort, 
is  here  present  to  us  in  the  Lord's  Supper  ;  by  grace,  I  say,  as  Epi- 
phanius  speaketh  of  it. 

"  Weston.  I  will  cut  off  from  henceforth  all  equivocation  and 
doubt :  for  whensoever  we  speak  of  Christ's  Body,  we  mean  that 
which  He  took  of  the  Virgin. 

"  Ridley.  Christ's  ascension  and  abiding  in  Heaven  cannot  stand 
with  His  Presence." — p.  213. 

Then  Smith  and  W^eston,  in  a  long  argument,  contended 
that  Christ  could  now  be  present  "corporally  and  really" 
and  had  thus  appeared  since  his  Ascension,  viz.,  to  St. 
Stephen,  St.  Paul,  and  St.  Peter.  Ridley  does  not  deny 
that  Christ  can  thus  be  present,  if  He  will,  but  says  they 
must  prove  that  will ;  he  disputes  that  the  vision  to  SS. 
Stephen  and  Paul  revealed  Christ  on  earth,  and  will  not  deny 
that  the  account  mentioned  by  some  Fathers  of  the  appear- 
ance to  St.  Peter  may  be  true;  yet  he  contends  (1)  that 
these  are  too  doubtful  to  argue  from ;  and  (2)  that  if  true, 
they  do  not  invalidate  his  position  ;  and  (3)  requires  them  to 
prove  that  Christ  was  corporally  in  Heaven  "  at  the  same 
time  when  He  was  corporally  on  earth/' 

Weston  quoted  St.  Chrysostom,  Horn.  xvii.  in  Heb.  c.  10, 
and  St.  Bernard :  Ridley,  while  denying  that  the  latter 
makes  for  his  opponents,  rejects  him  as  too  late  an  authority: 
of  the  former  he  says : — 

"  I  remember  the  place  well,"  but  remarks — "  And  whereas  you 
allege  out  of  Chrysostom,  that  Christ  is  offered  in  many  places  at 
once  (both  here  full  Christ  and  there  full  Christ),  I  grant  it  to  be 
true  ;  that  is,  that  Christ  is  offered  in  many  places  at  once,  in  a 
mystery  and  sacrameutally,  and  that  He  is  full  Christ  in  all  those 
places  ;  but  not  after  the  corporal  substance  of  our  flesh  which  He 
took,  but  after  the  benediction  which  giveth  life  ;  and  He  is  given 
to  the  godly  receivers  in  bread  and  wine,  as  Cyril  speaketh.  Con- 
cerning the  oblation  of  Christ,  whereof  Chrysostom  here  speaketh 
he  himself  doth  clearly  shew  what  he  meaneth  thereby,  in  saying  by 
the  way  of  correction,  '  We  always  do  the  selfsame,  howbeit  by  the 
recordation  or  remembrance  of  His  sacrifice." — p.  217. 

Again,  Smith  quotes  St.  Chrysostom  de  Sacerdotio,  lib.  iii. 
c.  4.  Ridley  accepts  the  passage,  and  says— 

"He  thatsitteth  there,  is  fore  present  in  mystery  and  by  grace  ; 


57 

and  is  holden  of  the  godly,  such  as  communicate  Him ;  not  only 
sacramentally  with  the  hand  of  the  body,  but  much  more  whole- 
somely with  the  hand  of  the  heart,  and  by  inward  drinking  is 

received :  but  by  the  sacramental  signification  He  is  holden 
of  all  men." — p.  223. 

Further  on,  Ward,  quoting  the  words 

"  Take  eat,  this  is  My  Body,"  asks  "  Gave  He  bread  made  of 
wheat  and  material  bread  ?  ' 

"  Ridley.  I  know  not  whether  He  gave  bread  of  wheat ;  but  He 
gave  true  and  material  bread. 

'  Ward.     I  will  prove  the  contrary  by  Scriptures.    -1^7 

*  He  delivered  to  them  that  which  He  bade  them  take. 

'  But  He  bade  them  not  take  material  bread,  but  His  own  Body. 

*  Ergo,  He  gave  not  material  bread,  but  His  own  Body. 

1  Ridley.  I  deny  the  minor.  For  He  bade  them  take  His  Body 
sacramentally  in  material  bread ;  and  after  that  sort  it  was  both 
bread  which  He  bade  them  take,'  because  the  substance  was  bread, 
and  that  it  was  also  His  Body,  because  it  was  the  Sacrament  of  His 
Body,  for  the  sanctifying  and  the  coming  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  which 
is  always  assistant  to  those  mysteries  which  were  instituted  of  Christ, 
and  lawfully  administered." — p.  228 

This  argument  Ridley  says  he  derived  from  Theophylaet, 
on  St.  Matt.  xxyi.  and  he  adds — 

"  I  grant  the  bread  to  be  converted  and  turned  into  the  flesh  of 

Christ;   but  not  by  trail  substantial  ion,    but  by  sacramental 

converting  or  turning.  *  It  is  transformed,'  saith  Theophylaet  in  the 
same  place,  '  by  a  mystical  benediction,  and  by  the  accession  or 
coming  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  unto  the  flesh  of  Christ.'  He  saith  not, 
by  expulsion  or  driving  away  the  substance  of  bread,  and  by  sub- 
stituting or  putting  in  its  place  the  corporal  substance  of  Christ's 
flesh.  And  whereas  he  saith,  '  It  is  not  a  figure  of  the  Body,'  we 
should  understand  that  saying,  as  he  himself  doth  elsewhere  add 
*  only,'  that  is,  it  is  no  naked  or  bare  figure  only.  For  Christ  is 
present  in  His  mysteries ;  neither  at  any  time,  as  Cyprian  saith, 
doth  the  Divine  Majesty  absent  Himself  from  the  Divine  Mysteries." 
— pp.  229,  30. 

Again,  Ward  quoted  St.  Aug.  on  Ps.  xcvi.  "Worship  His 
Footstool,"  &c.  After  some  dispute  about  it,  in  which 
Ridley  asserted  that  he 

"  never  yet  spake  contumeliously"  of  "  the  Sacraments;"  adding 
"  I  grant  that  Christ  hath  here  His  Church  in  earth ;  but  that 
Church  did  ever  receive  and  acknowledge  the  Eucharist  to  be  a 
Sacrament  of  the  Body  of  Christ,  yet  not  the  Body  of  Christ  really, 
but  the  Body  of  Christ  by  grace. 

"  Qlyn.  Then  I  ask  this  question :  Whether  the  Catholic  Church 
hath  ever  or  at  any  time  been  idolatrous  ? 

"Ridley.     The  Church  is  the  pillar  and  stay  of  the  truth,  that 


58 

never  yet  hath  been  idolatrous  in  respect  of  the  whole  ;  but,  per- 
adventure,  in  respect  of  some  part  thereof,  which  sometimes  may  be 
seduced  by  evil  pastors,  and  through  ignorance. 

"  Glyn.  That  Church  ever  hath  worshipped  the  flesh  of  Christ 
in  the  Eucharist. 

"  But  the  Church  hath  never  been  idolatrous. 

".Ergo,  it  hath  alway  judged  the  flesh  of  Christ  to  be  in  the 
Eucharist. 

"  Ridley.    And  I  also  worship  Christ  in  the  Sacrament,  but 

not  because  He  is  included  in  the  Sacrament :  like  as  I  worship 
Christ  also  in  the  Scriptures,  not  because  He  is  really  included  in 
them.  Notwithstanding  I  say,  that  the  Body  of  Christ  is  present 

in  the  Sacrament;    but  yet  sacranientally  and   spiritually 

(according  to  His  grace)  giving  life,  and  in  that  respect  really,  that 
is,  according  to  His  benediction,  giving  life.  Furthermore,  I 
acknowledge  gladly  the  true  Body  of  Christ  to  be  in  the  Lord's 

Supper,  in  such  sort  as  the  Church  of  Christ doth  acknowledge 

the  same.  But  the  true  Church  of  Christ  doth  acknowledge  a 
presence  of  Christ's  Body  in  the  Lord's  Supper  to  be  communicated 
to  the  godly  by  grace,  and  Spiritually,  as  I  have  often  shewed,  and 
by  a  sacramental  signification ;  but  not  by  the  corporal  presence 
of  the  Body  of  His  flesh. 

"  Glyn.  Augustine  against  Faustus  [saith]  '  Some  there  were 
which  thought  us,  instead  of  Bread  and  of  the  Cup,  to  worship 
Ceres  and  Bacchus.'  (lib.  xx.  c.  13.)  Upon  this  place  I  gather, 
that  there  was  an  adoration  of  the  Sacrament  among  the  Fathers  ; 
and  Erasmus,  in  an  Epistle  to  the  brethren  of  Lower  Germany, 
saith,  that  the  worshipping*  of  the  Sacrament  was  before  Augus- 
tine and  Cyprian. 

"  Ridley.  We  do  handle  the  signs  reverently  :  but  we  worship  the 
Sacrament  as  a  Sacrament,  not  as  a  thing  signified  by  the  Sacrament. 

**  Glyn.     What  is  the  symbol  of  the  Sacrament  ? 

"  Ridley.     Bread. 

"  Glyn.     Ergo,  We  worship  bread. 

"  Ridley.     There    is    a    deceit    in    this  word    '  adoramus.'     We 

worship  the  symbols,  when  reverently  we  handle  them.  We 
worship  Christ  wheresoever  we  perceive  His  benefits;  but 

we  understand  His  benefits  to  be  greatest  in  the  Sacrament. 

*'  Glyn.  So  I  may  fall  down  before  the  bench  here,  and  wor- 
ship Christ ;  and  if  any  man  ask  me  what  I  do,  1  may  answer,  I 
worship  Christ. 

"Ridley.    We  adore  and  worship  Christ  in  the  Eucharist 

And  if  you  mean  the  external  Sacrament;   I  say,  that  also  is  to 

be  worshipped  as  a  Sacrament 

"  Glyn.     So  was  the  faith  of  the  primitive  Church. 
"  Ridley.     Would  to  God  we  would  all  follow  the  faith  of  that 
Church  ! 

"  Glyn.     Think  you  that  Christ  hath  now  His  Church  ? 
"  Ridley.     I  do  so. 

"  Glyn.    But  all  the  Church  adoreth  Christ  verily  and  really 

in  the  Sacrament. 

*'  Ridley.     You  know  yourself,  that  the  Eastern  Church  would 


59 

not  acknowledge  transubstailtiation ;  as  appeareth  in  the  Council 
Of  Florence."— pp.  235-37. 

Then  Weston  and  Curtop  argued,  after  each  other,  that 

"  That  which  is  in  the  cup,  is  the  same  that  flowed  from  the  side 
of  Christ." 
Ridley  admitted  that  it  was, 

"  but  not  after  the  same  manner,  after  which  manner  it  sprang 
from  His  side  :  "  he  said  it  "  is  in  the  Chalice  indeed,  but  not  in 
the  real  presence,  but  by  grace  and  in  a  Sacrament. 

"  Weston.  That  is  very  well.  Then  we  have  Blood  in  the 
Chalice. 

"  Ridley.  It  is  true ;  but  by  grace,  and  in  a  Sacrament." 
—pp.  237,  238. 

Watson  then  asked  this  question — 

"  When  Christ  said  in  John  vi,,  '  He  that  eateth  My  flesh,'  &c., 
doth  He  signify  in  those  words  the  eating  of  His  true  and  natural 
Flesh,  or  else  of  the  bread  and  symbol  ? 

"  Ridley.  I  understand  that  place  of  the  very  Flesh  of  Christ 
to  be  eaten,  but  Spiritually ;  and  further  I  say,  that  the  Sacrament 
also  pertaineth  to  the  spiritual  manducation :  for  without  the 
Spirit  to  eat  the  Sacrament  is  to  eat  it  unprofitably;  for  whoso 
eateth  not  spiritually,  he  eateth  his  own  condemnation/' — p.  238. 

Further,   Watson  argued — 

"  This  promise  [i.  e.  of  *  Society  betwixt  Christ  and  us ']  is  made 
to  the  Flesh  and  Blood  of  Christ,  and  not  to  the  bread  and  wine." 

"  Ergo,  The  Sacrament  is  not  bread  and  wine,  but  the  Body  and 
Blood  of  Christ. 

"  Ridley.  There  is  no  promise  made  to  him  that  taketh  common 
bread  and  common  wine  ;  but  to  him  that  receiveth  the  sanctified 
bread,  and  bread  of  the  Communion,  there  is  a  large  promise  of 
grace  made  :  neither  is  the  promise  made  to  the  symbols,  but  to  the 
thing  of  the  Sacrament.  But  the  thing  of  the  Sacrament  is  the 

Flesh  and  Blood."— p.  240. 

Next  Tresham  said — 

"  Evil  men  do  eat  the  natural  Body  of  Christ :  Ergo,  the  true 
and  natural  Body  of  Christ  is  on  the  altar. 

"  Ridley.  Evil  men  do  eat  the  very  true  and  natural  Body  of 
Christ  Sacramentally,  and  no  further;  as  St.  Augustine  saith. 

But  good  men  do  eat  the  very  true  Body,  both  sacranientally, 

and  spiritually  by  grace." — p.  246. 

Again,  in  reply  to  Tresham,  who  quoted  St.  Aug.  cont 
Donat.  v.  c.  8,  Ridley  said 

"  It  is  the  Body  to  them  [the  wicked,]  that  is,  the  Sacrament  of 
the  Body  :  and  Judas  took  the  Sacrament  of  the  Lord  to  his  con- 
demnation. Augustine  hath  distinguished  these  things  well  in 
another  place,  where  he  saith,  '  The  bread  of  the  Lord,  [and]  the 
bread  the  Lord.  Evil  men  eat  the  bread  of  the  Lord,  but  not  the 
bread  the  Lord  :  but  good  men  eat  both  the  bread  of  the  Lord,  and 
Bread  the  Lord.'  " 


60 

Then  Weston  quoted  Theophylaet — 

"  . .  . .  Judas ....  tasted  the  Lord's  Flesh,"  &c. :  to  which 
replied  "  This  phrase  to  Divines  is  well  known,  and  used  of  the 
doctors  :  He  tasted  the  Flesh  of  the  Lord  *  insensibiliter  '  '  insensibly  ;' 
that  is,  the  Sacrament  of  the  Lord's  Flesh." — p.  247. 

Watson,  again,  quoted  the  Council  of  Nice,  c.  xxx. ;  of 
which  Ridley  said  it  "  is  to  me  a  great  authority ;"  wheri 
Watson  pressed  the  sentence  "  The  Lamb  of  God  lieth  on  the 
Table  :"  Ridley  said  : 

"...  .that  Heavenly  Lamb,  is  (as  I  confess)  011  the  table  ;  but  by 
a  spiritual  presence,  by  grace,  and  not  after  any  corporal  substance 
of  His  Flesh  taken  of  the  Virgin  Mary " — p.  249. 

Afterwards  Pie  asked 

"  What  say  you  to  that  Council,  where  it  is  said,  that  the  Priest 
doth  offer  an  unbloody  sacrifice  of  the  Body  of  Christ  ? 

"  Ridley.     I  say,  it  is  well  said,  if  it  be  rightly  understood. 

"  Pie.     But  he  offereth  an  unbloody  sacrifice. 

"  Ridley.  It  is  called  unbloody,  and  is  offered  after  a  certain 
manner,  and  in  a  mystery,  and  as  a  representation  of  that  bloody 
sacrifice  :  and  he  doth  lie,  who  saith  Christ  to  be  offered." — p.  250. 

Weston  next  referred  to  St.  Chrys.  Horn,  xxxiv.,  on  1  Cor.  x., 
and  urged  from  it  by  another  syllogism  that  "  the  real  [t.  e. 
natural]  Body  of  Christ  is  in  the  Eucharist;"  on  which  Ridley 
observed — "We  worship,  I  confess,  the  same  true  Lord  and  Sa- 
viour of  the  world,  which  the  wise  men  worshipped  in  the  man- 
ger ;  howbeit  we  do  it  in  a  mystery,  and  in  the  Sacrament  of  the 
Lord's  Supper,  and  that  in  spiritual  liberty,  as  saith  St.  Au- 
gustine, not  in  carnal  servitude  :  that  is,  we  do  not  worship  ser- 
vilely the  signs  for  the  things  :  for  that  should  be,  as  he  also 
saith,  a  part  of  a  servile  infirmity.  But  we  behold  with  the  eyes 
of  faith  Him  present  after  grace,  arid  spiritually  set  upon  the 
table ;  and  we  worship  Him  which  sitteth  above,  and  is  worshipped 
of  the  angels.  For  Christ  is  always  assistant  to  His  mysteries, 
as  the  said  Augustine  saith.  And  the  Divine  Majesty,  as  saith 
Cyprian,  doth  never  absent  Itself  from  the  Divine  Mysteries  :  but 
this  assistance  and  presence  of  Christ,  as  in  Baptism  it  is  wholly 
Spiritual,  and  by  grace,  and  not  by  any  corporal  substance  of 
the  Flesh,  even  so  it  is  here  in  the  Lord's  Supper,  being  rightly 
and  according  to  the  Word  of  God  duly  ministered. 

"  Weston.  That  which  the  woman  did  hold  in  her  womb,  the 
same  thing  holdeth  the  Priest. 

"  Ridley.  I  grant  the  Priest  holdeth  the  same  tiling,  but 
after  another  manner.  She  did  hold  the  natural  Body  ;  the  Priest 
holdeth  the  mystery  of  the  Body." — p.  251. 

Weston  then  dissolved  the  Disputation,  exclaiming,  and 
calling  upon  those  present  to  join  with  him,  "Verity  hath 
the  victory." 

Other,  and  equally  strong,  statements  of  Ridley,  occur  in 


61 

his  last  examination  before  the  Commissioners  at  Oxford, 
Sept.  30,  1555.  To  take  but  one  passage  : 

"  . .  . .  both  you  and  I  agree  herein,  that  in  the  Sacrament  is 
the  very  tlllC  and  natural  Body  and  Blood  of  Christ,  even  that 
which  was  born  of  the  Virgin  Mary,  which  ascended  into  Heaven, 
which  sitteth  at  the  Right  Hand  of  God  the  Father,  which  shall 
come  from  thence  to  judge  the  quick  and  dead  ;  only  we  differ  in  modo, 
in  the  way  and  manner  of  being  :  we  confess  all  one  thing'  to  be  in 

the  Sacrament,  and  dissent  in  the  manner  of  being  there to  the 

question  thus  I  answer,  that  in  the  Sacrament  of  the  Altar  is  the 
natural  Body  and  Blood  of  Christ  vere  et  realiter,  indeed  and 
really,  for  spiritually  by  grace  and  efficacy  ;  for  so  every  worthy 
receiver  receiveth  the  very  true  Body  of  Christ.  But  if  you  mean 
really  and  indeed,  so  that  thereby  you  would  include  a  lively  and  a 
moveable  Body  under  the  forms  of  Bread  and  Wine,  then,  in  that  sense, 
is  not  Christ's  Body  in  the  Sacrament,  really  and  indeed.'' — p.  274. 

We  have  now  seen  what  was  the,  apparently,  all-absorbing 
topic  in  the  writings,  disputations,  and  conversations  of 
Cranmer,  Ridley,  and  others  (who  are  known  to  have  been 
responsible  for  the  Revisions  of  the  Public  Offices  of  the 
Church  of  England  both  in  1549  and  1552)  prior  to  the 
publication  of  the  contested  Declaration  on  Kneeling:  we 
have  learned  that  that  topic  was  the  Doctrine  of  Transub- 
stantiation  and  its  real  or  alleged  theoretical  and  practical 
results  :  we  have  further  ascertained  that  the  first  Book  of 
Common  Prayer  embodied  such  Eucharistical  Doctrine  as 
satisfied  the  defenders  and  (apparently)  the  opposers  of  that 
view  of  the  Real  Presence  which  was  based  uponTransubstantia- 
tion :  we  have  noticed  that  the  second  Book  of  Common  Prayer 
was  held  to  teach  substantially  the  doctrine  of  the  former 
Book,  and  as  such  was  accepted :  we  have  found  that  at  and 
subsequent  to  the  publication  of  this  later  Book  (which  more- 
over contained  the  famed  Declaration),  the  sy nodical,  official, 
and  personal  statements  of  those  concerned  in  it  were  precisely 
of  the  same  kind,  in  reference  to  the  chiefly  debated  questions 
on  the  Eucharist,  as  those  which  they  had  made  at  and  before 
the  appearance  of  the  earlier  Book:  and  further  we  have 
observed  that  the  statements  of  others  (either  but  little  or  not 
at  all  responsible  for  the  authorized  changes,  yet  representing 
no  doubt  the  views  and  opinions  of  a  large  number  of  the 
Clergy  and  probably  of  many  educated  laity  of  that  period) 
are  of  a  like  stamp  and  character. 


62 

Further,  it  can  hardly  have  escaped  observation  that  certain 
phrases  and  words  (which,  in  order  to  draw  attention  to  them, 
I  have  printed  in  a  distinct  type)  continually  recur  through- 
out the  several  Documents  already  quoted ;  and  moreover 
that  they  are  constantly  interchanged  and  used  as  equivalents. 
On  the  one  hand  we  have  the  following  : — 

(1)  Flesh,  bloody  bone,  essence,  substance,  very  substance, 
natural  substance,   corporal  substance,   same   substance^ 
self-same  in  substance,  form,  quantity,  corporal  presence 
of  the  substance  of  Christ's  manhood,  essence  and  sub- 
stance of  the  body  and  flesh  of  Christ,  true  and  natural 
flesh,   true  natural  organical  flesh  not  spiritually,   real 
and  bodily  presence  of  Christ's  flesh  and  blood,  transub- 
stantiation  or  corporal  presence,  real  presence,  God  and 
man,  contained  and  included  under  the  forms  or  accidents, 
there  with  the  bread,  mixed:  gross,  corporal,  corporeal, 
carnal,  real,  natural,  organical,  true,  corporaliter  id  est 
crasse,  sensible,  essential,  true  natural,  very  natural,  very, 
substantial,  indeed,  self-same,  human,  local:   naturally, 
corporally,  grossly,  bodily,  materially,  truly  and  really, 
substantially,  locally,  circumscriptly ,  properly,  carnally, 
invisibly,  verily,  fleshly,  organically,  sensibly,  not  sacramen* 
tally  only,  verily  and  indeed,  killing  again,  not  in  figure. 
While  on  the  other  hand  we  find  these  :  — 

(2)  Substance,    virtue,  efficacy,   mystery,    very  flesh, 
full  Christ,  presence  of  Christ  in  spirit,  very  true  and 
natural  body  sacramentally,  natural  body  and  blood  of 
Christ  vere  et  realiter,  present  in  mystery  and  by  grace, 
same  thing,   true  natural  organical  flesh  but  spiritually  : 
very,  real,  indeed,  converted,  true,  mixed  not,  sacramental, 
faithful,    spiritual,   very   real,    remembrance,    property, 
certain  real  property :  very  deed  and  effectually,  in  deed 
and    truly^    really,    spiritually,     verily,    substantially, 
figuratively,  properly,    sacramentally,    virtually,    verily 
and  really,  wholly,  corporally  unto  faith,  after  a  certain 
property  or  manner,  turned  not  by  transubstantiation  but 
sacramentally,  vere=corporally  naturally  really,  so  spi- 
ritually that  nevertheless  truly. 

Now  it  must  be  conceded,  I  think,  that  these  terms  so 
used  all  mean  the  same  thing  and  all  point  to  one  conclusion. 
The  former  (1)  are  simply  negations  of  a  certain  kind  of 


63 

Presence  in  the  Holy  Eucharist  which  was,  or  was  alleged  to 
be,  held  by  (what  I  may  conveniently  call)  the  Papal  party  ; 
and  which  was  declared  by  the  Reforming  party,  whether 
English  or  Foreign,  to  be  a  Presence  alike  opposed  to  Scrip- 
ture, to  the  consent  of  the  Ancient  writers,  to  the  continuous 
teaching  of  the  Church,  to  philosophy,  to  reason,  and  to 
faith.  The  latter  (2)  are  definitions  of  the  sort  of  Presence 
which  the  English  Reformers,  as  a  whole,  allowed  to  be  con. 
sistent  with  the  tests  just  named;  but  they  must  not,  I 
venture  to  suggest,  be  accounted  as  exclusive  definitions,  but 
only  as  a  terminology  which  to  their  minds  was  adequate  to 
teach  the  Catholic  doctrine  and  (what  it  seems  likely  was  even 
of  more  importance  to  their  minds  then,  in  their  estimate  of 
what  was  essential  to  be  done)  would  effectually  supersede  the 
popular  belief  in  Transubstantiation,  and  with  it  would  break 
down  the  evils  which  they  pointed  to  as  having  flowed  from  it. 

These  considerations,  I  cannot  but  think,  must  be  the 
safest  guides  to  the  interpretation  of  the  Declaration  on 
Kneeling  (or  Black  Rubric  as  it  is  commonly  but  inaccurately 
called)  appended  to  the  Communion  Office  in  the  Prayer 
Book  of  1552:  if  so,  it  is  of  the  utmost  importance  that  we 
should  not  affix  to  it  a  meaning  exceeding  in  the  slightest 
degree  what  its  framers  designed  it  to  convey :  we  may  not 
I  conceive,  narrow  its  terms  or  assume  them  to  be  positive 
definitions  of  what,  and  what  only,  the  English  Churchmen  of 
that  day  were  free  to  hold  and  to  teach :  our  true  course,  it 
seems  to  me,  is  to  affix  to  it  only  that  character  which  it  will 
be  found  Historically  to  bear:  what  that  character  is  I  described 
at  the  commencement  of  these  remarks,  and  I  am  emboldened 
to  think  that  the  evidences  since  examined  are  adequate  to 
prove  that  it  was  not  untruly  drawn. 

It  is  well  known  that  the  DECLARATION  disappeared  from 
the  2nd.  Prayer  Book  when  revised  for  use  at  the  commence- 
ment of  Elizabeth's  reign,  and  was  not  restored  until  the  last 
revision  in  1662.  The  cause  of  its  non-appearance  in  the 
Book  of  1559  may  be  easily,  and  probably  accurately,  sur- 
mised, though  I  am  not  aware  of  anymore  precise  evidence  on 
the  subject  than  the  statement  of  Bp.  Burnet  (for  which,  how- 
ever, he  gives  no  proofs)  that  it  " was  by  Queen 

Elizabeth  ordered  to  be  left  out  of  the  Common  Prayer 
Book  !  since  it  might  have  given  offence  to  some,  otherwise 
inclinable  to  the  communion  of  the  Church,  who  vet  retained 


the  belief  of  the  Corporal  Presence." — Hist.  Ref.  Pt.  ii.  Bk.  i, 
p.  162,  fol.  1715. 

Now,  looking  at  the  general  history  of  the  period,  no 
doubt  this  remark  of  Burnet  furnishes  a  most  probable  reason 
for  the  omission  of  the  Declaration :  indeed,  we  learn  from 
Collier,  who  may  be  regarded  as  Burnet's  Historic  rival,  that 
Elizabeth's  Cabinet,  on  her  Accession,  impressed  upon  her 
that — "  To  prevent  discontent,  the  reformed  Liturgy  ought  to 
be  reviewed,  and  made  as  inoffensive  to  all  parties  as  may 
be."  (Eccles.  Hist.,  vol.  ii.  p.  410,  fol.  1714) :  and  this,  so  far 
as  the  Papal  party  were  concerned,  well  agrees  with  another 

remark    made  by  Burnet,  namely,  that  "  The  Queen .. 

inclined to  have  the  manner  of  Christ's  Presence  in  the 

Sacrament  left  in  some  general  words ;  that  those  who  believed 
the  CORPORAL  Presence  might  not  be  driven  away  from  the 
Church  by  too  nice  an  explanation  of  it."  (Hist.  Ref.  vol.  ii. 
bk.  3,  p.  376.)  Certainly,  on  the  face  of  it,  the  Declaration 
does  look  like  a  denial  of  the  Real  Presence,  and  therefore 
must  have  been  an  annoyance,  if  not  an  obstacle,  to  the 
Roman  party,  who  would  naturally  construe  its  terms  as  a 
reproach  to  views  which  they  held,  and  against  which,  as  we 
have  seen,  it  was  directed. 

But,  it  is  worth  considering  whether  this  alleged  wish  of 
the  Queen  stood  alone,  in  inducing  Abp.  Parker  and  his 
Episcopal  brethren  to  omit  the  Declaration :  it  seems  to  me 
that  their  knowledge  of  the  tendencies  of  the  extremer 
Reforming  party  in  Edward's  later  years,  their  fears  of  a  re- 
actionary irreverence  consequent  upon  the  contemplated 
alteration  in  the  Religious  Offices,  Mary  being  dead,  and 
their  commencing  experience  of  those  whose  course  after- 
wards proved  so  fertile  a  source  of  trouble  to  both  Parker 
and  Grindal  (though  the  latter  somewhat  sympathized  with 
them) — were  points  which,  in  all  likelihood,  assisted  to 
determine  their  judgment  in  favour  of  the  omission. 

It  was,  indeed,  made  a  subject  of  enquiry,  whether  kneel- 
ing at  the  Sacrament  should  be  insisted  on  in  the  Book  then 
to  be  prepared :  for,  among  the  questions  proposed  by  Cecil 
to  Guest  (afterwards  Bishop  of  Rochester)  the  10th  was 
"  Whether  the  Sacrament  were  to  be  received  standing  or 
kneeling  ?  (Strype's  Ann.  vol.  i.  p.  83.)  Guest  thought  it 
should  be  indifferent :  this  opinion,  however,  was  not  acted 


65 

upon :  though,  if  it  had  been,  that  would  have  furnished  no 
satisfactory  proof  of  a  denial  of  the  Real  Presence,  seeing 
it  was  the  external  form  of  devotion  in  the  Greek  Church. 
Indeed,  the  language  of  Guest,  in  a  controversy  already 
quoted  (p.  17)  quite  agreed  with  that  of  his  contempo- 
raries, who  yet  insisted  upon  kneeling  being  the  rule  ;  and 
unless  we  are  to  suppose  that  his  views  had  become 
higher  when,  in  1566,  he  wrote  his  lately-discovered  remark- 
able letter  to  Cecil — a  supposition  which  certainly  lacks 
proof — we  must  believe  that  he  advocated  what  he  considered 
to  be  an  act  of  reverence  equally  demonstrative  with  kneel- 
ing, if  made  the  rule  of  the  Church. 

True  it  is  that  later  in  Elizabeth's  reign  the  Puritans,as  they 
had  then  begun  to  be  called,  pressed  upon  the  Bishops  to 
allow  them  to  receive  the  Eucharist  standing  :  but  this  was 
only  when  they  found  that  their  demands  to  be  allowed  to  sit 
were  again  and  again  rejected :  indeed  I  remember  to  have 
seen  it  stated  somewhere  (by  Strype,  I  think,  though  the 
passage  was  not  noted  down  at  the  time  and  cannot  now  be 
searched  for)  that  some  of  them  even  proposed  to  prostrate 
themselves :  their  object  in  this,  as  in  their  other  proposals 
apparently  being  simply  to  avoid  a  Rule  authoritatively  laid 
down,  and  the  more  so  as  that  Rule  was  the  one  also  observed 
in  the  rest  of  the  Western  Church. 

That  Parker  and  Grindal  were  both  concerned  to  secure 
reverence  in  the  celebration  of  the  Eucharist  (though  the 
latter  proved  himself  throughout  Elizabeth's  reign  consider- 
ably anti-ceremonial)  is  plain  from  the  fact  that  not  long 
after  the  publication  of  the  Prayer  Book  of  1559— indeed 
almost  contemporaneous  with  it  —  the  Queen  upon  their 
recommendation  (Parker  Corresp.  p.  378)  issued  an  Injunc- 
tion, in  virtue  of  the  power  vested  in  her  by  Sec.  xxvi  of  her 
Act  of  Uniformity,  directing  Wafer  Bread  to  be  used  "  for 
the  more  reverence  to  be  given  to  these  Holy  Mysteries  " — 
an  Injunction  which  provoked  controversy  and  opposition 
during  the  whole  of  her  reign.  These  considerations,  apart 
from  others  which  could  be  produced  did  my  present  limits 
permit,  seem  sufficient  to  establish  the  view  suggested — that 
a  fear  of  its  abuse  by  the  Puritan  party,  as  well  as  an  un- 

K 


66 

willingness  to  offend  the  Roman  party,  concurred  to  keep  out 
from  Elizabeth's  Prayer  Book  a  Declaration  which,  as  it  was 
verbally  obnoxious  to  the  latter  so,  was  not  incapable  of 
perverse  and  mis-directed  criticism  by  the  former. 

It  is  wholly  out  of  my  power  now,  from  the  want  of  time, 
to  attempt  any  examination  of  controversial  Documents  in 
this  Reign,  touching  the  question  of  the  Real  Presence, 
similar  to  that  pursued  in  Edward's  reign  :  it  would  be  much 
to  the  purpose,  for  example,  to  analyze  Jewel's  famous  con- 
troversy with  Harding ;  it  may  be  observed,  however,  that  it 
would  probably  yield  the  like  results  and,  too,  would  exhibit 
more  consistent  and  definite  language  than  some  of  that 
which  has  been  quoted. 

But  the  prominent  part  taken  by  Grindal  in  this  Reign,  first 
as  Bishop  of  London,  then  Archbishop  respectively  of  York 
and  Canterbury,  renders  it  desirable  not  to  pass  over  a  tract 
of  his  upon  this  subject  which  seems  to  have  been  written 
just  after  his  return  to  England  upon  the  accession  of  Eliza- 
beth. We  have  already  seen  something  of  his  views  in  the 
discussion  given  at  (p.  17):  it  is  most  unlikely  that  his 
opinions  on  this  point  became  more  Catholic  during  his  resi- 
dence among  the  continental  Protestants :  if  this  be  so,  we 
are  entitled  to  regard  the  tract  just  mentioned  as  explanatory 
of  his  former  statement. 

Strype  (Life  of  Grindal,  p.  464)  having  stated  that  Grindal 
was  the  author,  speaks  of  it  as — 

" written  in  a  clear  method,  and  with  much  rational  evidence, 

against  the  real,  that  is,   the  gTOSS  and  corporal  presence  in  the 
Sacrament. 

In  this  imaginary  Dialogue  Custom  asks  at  the  outset — 

"  What !  are  you  so  great  a  stranger  in  these  quarters  ?  Hear 
you  not  how  that  men  do  daily  speak  against  the  Sacrament  of  the 
Altar,  denying  it  to  be  the  real  Body  of  Christ  ? 

Verity  pleads  in  excuse  for  his  ignorance  that  he  has 
"  returned  but  of  late  into  this  country." 

Custom  having  cited  the  text  "  This  is  my  Body,"  as  ex- 
pressing the  REAL  Presence,  Verity  proposes  to  "Declare 

the  meaning  of  the  words and  next  in  what  sense 

the  Church  and  the  old  Fathers  have  evermore  taken  them." 


67 

We  are  bound,  therefore,  to  assume  that  Verity  means  to 
speak  in  a  Catholic  sense. 

In  the  course  of  this  argument,  Custom  having  alleged 
"  Christ  hath  not  so  gross  and  fleshly,  (as  you  think)  but  a 
spiritual  and  ghostly  body ;  and  therefore,  without  repug- 
nance, it  may  be  in  many  places  at  once,"  Verity  puts  this 
Syllogism. 

"  No   body,    being  real,  natural,   and  organical,  and  not 

Spiritual  can  be  in  many  places  at  once  : 

"  Christ's  Body  in  the  Sacrament  was  in  the  Apostles'  hands  and 
mouths  at  one  time  :  which  were  many  places  : 

"  Ergo,  Christ's  Body  in  the  Sacrament  was  not  a  real,  natural, 

and  organical  Body,  but  spiritual." — pp.  so  and  51. 

Further  on,  he  argues  against  the  real,  that  is  the  carnal 
presence,  from  the  case  of  unworthy  receivers,  summing  up 
his  position  in  these  words  : — 

"  Thus,  by  the  Word  of  God,  by  reason,  and  by  the  old  Fathers, 
it  is  plain  that  sinful  men  eat  not  the  Body  of  Christ,  receive  they  the 
Sacrament  never  so  oft:  which  thing  could  not  be,  if  in  the  Sacra- 
ment there  remained  nothing  but  the  Body  of  Christ.'* — p.  59. 

It  is  unnecessary  to  quote  more  from  this  Dialogue  :  but  it 
is  of  consequence  to  notice  the  expression  in  the  last  extract, 
"  If  in  the  Sacrament  there  remained  nothing  but  the  Body 
of  Christ." 

Grindal's  words,  "  nothing  but,"  taken  by  themselves, 
would  naturally  convey  the  belief  that  he  held  a  Real  Objec- 
tive Presence;  denying  at  the  same  time  the  truth  of  the 
alleged  Roman  theory  which  asserted  the  absence  of  the 
substance  of  the  Bread  and  Wine  as  distinguished  from  their 
accidents  which  were  held  to  remain.  He  tells  "  Custom," 
(p.  42)  "  I  conclude  by  your  own  argument,  that  we  ought 
not  only  to  say,  but  also  to  believe,  that  in  the  Sacrament 
there  remaineth  bread"  :  and  then  he  quotes  St.  Augustine's 
definition  "  (in  Joan,  tract.  26)  Aliud  est  sacramentum,  aliud 
res  sacramenti.  Sacramentum  est  quod  in  corpus  vadit :  res 
autem  sacramenti  est  corpus  Domini  nostri  Jesu  Christi" 
His  argument  seems  to  be — that  as  the  res  sacramenti  is 
"  spiritual "  not  "  organicas "  IT  can  only  be  matter  for 
spiritual  manducation;  but  this  being  an  act  of  lively  "  faith," 
which  the  wicked  have  not,  therefore  "  Christ's  Body  cannot 


68 

be  eaten  of  the  wicked  :  which  thing  must  necessarily  ensue, 
if  the  bread  were  turned  into  the  body  of  Christ,"  for  then 
IT  must  be  "  eaten  with  the  teeth. . .  .of  the  body  :"  which 
is  impossible.  Grindal  like  the  other  writers  of  that  period, 
especially  those  whom  I  have  been  quoting,  was  combating 
the  carnal  Presence  then,  as  we  have  seen,  popularly  held ;  and 
then  too,  as  now,  imputed  to  Transubstantiation.  If  Roman 
Catholics  now  repudiate  this  view,  and  try  to  reconcile  diffi- 
culties by  attributing  to  accidents  the  properties  which 
Grindal  assigned  to  substance;  then,  however  inconsistent 
or  illogical  their  argument  may  be  thought,  CHARITY  at  least 
should  forbid  us  from  endeavouring  to  fasten  upon  them 
what  they  now  disown  ;  though,  as  will  have  been  observed 
in  the  course  of  these  quotations,  some  of  their  leading  con- 
troversialists formerly  insisted  upon  the  popular  belief. 

There  are  no  Writings  of  Abp.  Parker  to  which  we 
can  turn  to  ascertain  with  precision  what  were  his  views  on 
this  Doctrinal  question  ;  but  so  far  as  we  can  gather  from  his 
general  statements  and  conduct  during  his  Primacy,  it  is 
certain  that  they  were  not  lower  than  Grindal's:  his  con- 
tinued residence  in  England  during  the  reign  of  Mary  no 
doubt  preserved  him  from  much  of  that  deteriorated  Doctrine 
which  the  contact  with  Genevan  Divines  produced  in  some 
of  his  contemporaries  :  indeed  the  accusations  made  against 
him  by  (the  Roman)  Dorman  on  the  one  hand  and  by  many 
of  the  Puritans  on  the  other  hand,  of  being  a  Lutheran, 
plainly  shew  that  his  tendencies  were  in  what  we  should 
term  the  Catholic  direction. 

But  it  is  much  to  the  purpose  to  observe  that  the  Arch- 
bishop put  forth,  in  1556,  jointly  with  Grindal  and  fourteen 
other  Bishops,  ^Elfric's  Anglo-Saxon  Homily  of  "  the  Paschall 
Lamb,"  in  the  Preface  to  which  they  state  that— 

"  ....  almost  of  the  whole  sermon  is  about  the  understanding 
of  the  Sacramentall  bread  and  wine  howe  it  is  the  bodye  and  bloude 
of  Christ  our  Saviour,  by  which  is  reuealed  and  made  knowen, 
what  hath  been  the  common  taught  doctrine  of  the  Church  of 
England  on  this  behalfe  many  hundreth  years  agoe,  contrarye  unto 
the  unadvised  writing  of  some  no  we  a  days." 

The  Preface  specifies,  too,  certain  points  in  the  Sermon 


69 

which  the  Episcopal  publishers  accounted  "  not  consonant 
to  sounde  doctrine,"  and,  throughout  the  Sermon,  notes 
indicate  their  views  upon  various  statements  in  it :  it  is  just 
worth  while  to  notice,  however,  that  the  expression  "  once 
suffred  Christe  by  hym  selfe,  but  yet  neuertherless  his  suf- 
frynge  is  daylye  renued  at  the  masse  through  mysterye  of 
the  holye  housell " — is  not  marked  as  objectionable  by  the 
Bishops,  though  they  do  in  the  Preface  take  exception  to  the 
sentence  which  immediately  follows — "  Therefore  the  holye 
Masse  is  profitable  both  to  the  lyuing  and  to  the  dead." 
Is  it  improbable  that — having  regard  to  the  whole  tenor  of 
the  Sermon,  based  too  as  it  is  said  to  have  been  upon  Ber- 
tram's Book — they  considered  the  language  sound  ?  Indeed 
a  comparison  of  it  with  many  passages  in  the  Writings 
already  quoted  would  perhaps  answer  this  enquiry  affir- 
matively. Plainly  the  great  value  of  ^Elfric's  Homily  in 
the  minds  of  the  Elizabethan  Bishops  was  its  witness 
against  Transubstantiation :  if  the  above  expression  did  not 
involve  that  tenet,  and  it  would  be  hard  to  prove  that  it 
does — they  would  in  all  likelihood,  I  think,  be  unwilling  to 
condemn  it  even  if  they  thought  it  undesirable;  though, 
indeed,  that  they  did  so  regard  it  must  first  be  shewn. 

I  can  only  now  simply  notice  one  other  important  fact 
in  connection  with  this  omission  of  the  Declaration  in 
Elizabeth's  Book,  namely,  that  the  third  paragraph  (p.  32)  of 
the  xxixth  of  Edward's  Articles  was  omitted  in  the  xxxix 
Articles  of  1571.  Now  considering  that  that  paragraph  was, 
as  I  have  already  shown,  the  probable  basis  of  the  Declaration 
in  the  Prayer  Book  of  1552,  this  omission  seems  to  strengthen 
the  notion  that  not  only  did  the  Elizabethan  Bishops,  of  whom 
be  it  remembered  Gest  the  framer  of  the  present  xxviiith 
Article  was  one — desire  not  needlessly  to  alienate  the 
Roman  party,  but  that  they  wished  to  afford  as  much 
latitude  of  language  as  could  possibly  consist  with  a  denial 
of  Transubstantiation.  What  kind  of  language  they  ap- 
proved may  be  seen  from  the  Saxon  Homily  already  men- 
tioned :  but  we  have  no  warrant,  I  think,  for  supposing  that 
they  wished  to  limit  others  to  that  if  only  they  repudiated 
the  Roman  Doctrine. 


70 

It  was  not  until  the  Revision  of  1662  that  the  Declara- 
tion again  found  its  way  into  the  Prayer  Book.  The  Non- 
conformist party  at  that  time  desired  these  two  things,  among 
others,  with  reference  to  the  Administration  of  the  Holy 
Communion;  first: — (1)  "....that  the  kneeling  at  the 
Sacrament  (it  being  not  that  gesture  which  the  Apostles 
used,  though  Christ  was  personally  present  amongst  them, 
nor  that  which  was  used  in  the  purest  and  primitive  times 
of  the  Church)  may  be  left  free,  as  it  was  1  and  2  Edw., 
*  As  touching  kneeling,  &c.,  they  may  be  used  or  left  as 
every  man's  devotion  serveth  without  blame.' "  (2)  Next  the 
restoration  of  the  Declaration  on  Kneeling. 

The  Bishops  in  their  ''Answer"  to  these  "Exceptions" 
of  the  Ministers  defended  the  "  position  of  Kneeling," 
assigning  their  reasons  in  §§  10  and  15 :  to  the  other 
demand  they  replied  : — 

§  12.  This  Eub.  is  not  in  the  liturgy  of  Queen  Elizabeth,  nor 
confirmed  by  law ;  nor  is  there  any  great  need  of  restoring  it, 
the  world  being  now  in  more  danger  of  profanation  than  of  idolatry. 
Besides  the  sense  of  it  is  declared  sufficiently  in  the  28th  Article  of 
the  Church  of  England." — Card.  Hist.  Conf>  p.  354. 

After  this  refusal  on  the  part  of  the  Bishops  how  came  it 
then  to  be  inserted?  Burnet,  who  as  a  near  contemporary 
must  be  accounted  a  competent  witness,  thus  answers  the 
question  :  he  is  replying  to  Collier's  criticism  on  his  History: — 

"  The  next,  and  indeed  the  last  particular  that  out  of  many  more 
I  will  mention,  is  the  setting  down  the  explanation  that  was  made 
upon  the  order  for  kneeling  at  the  Sacrament  in  King  Edward's 
time,  wrong  in  a  very  material  word  :  For  in  that,  the  words  were  : 
That  there  was  not  in  the  Sacrament  any  Real  or  Essential  Presence  of 
Christ's  Natural  Flesh  and  Blood :  but  he  instead  of  that  puts 
Corporal  Presence.  It  seems  in  this  he  only  looked  at  the  Kubrick, 
as  it  is  now  at  the  end  of  the  Communion  Service,  upon  a  conceit 
that  it  stands  now  as  it  was  in  King  Edward's  Book  ;  though  it  was 
at  that  time  changed ;  and  we  know  who  was  the  author  of  that 
change,  and  who  pretended  that  a  Corporal  Presence  signified  such  a 
presence  as  a  body  naturally  has,  which  the  assertors  of  Transub- 
stantiation  itself  do  not,  and  cannot  pretend  is  in  this  case,  where 
they  say  the  body  is  not  present  corporally,  but  spiritually,  or  as  a 
spirit  is  present.  And  lie  who  had  the  chief  hand  in  procuring 
this  alteration,  had  a  very  extraordinary  subtilty,  by  which'  he 
reconciled  the  opinion  of  a  Real  Presence  in  the  Sacrament  with 


71 

the  last  words  of  the  Kubrick,  '  That  the  Natural  Body  and  Blood 
of  Christ  were  in  Heaven,  and  not  here;  it  being  against  the 
truth  of  Christ's  Natural  Body,  to  be  at  one  Time  in  more 
Places  than  one.  It  was  thus :  a  Body  is  in  a  Place,  if 
there  is  no  intermediate  Body,  but  a  Vacuum  between  it  and 
the  place.  And  he  thought  that  by  the  Vertue  of  the  Words 
of  Consecration,  there  was  a  Oilinder  of  a  Vacuum  made  between 
the  elements  and  Christ's  Body  in  Heaven  ;  So  that  no  body  being 
between,  it  was  both  in  Heaven  and  in  the  elements.  Such  a 
solemn  Piece  of  Folly  as  this,  can  hardly  be  read  without  Indig- 
nation. But  if  our  Author  favors  this  conceit,  yet  when  he  sets 
down  that  which  was  done  in  King  Edward's  reign,  he  ought  riot  to 
have  changed  the  word,  especially  such  an  important  one.  I  shall 
say  no  more  of  that  work,  but  that  there  appeared  to  me  quite 
through  the  second  volume,  such  a  constant  inclination  to  favour  the 
Popish  doctrine,  and  to  censure  the  Reformers,  that  I  should  have 
had  a  better  opinion  of  the  author's  integrity,  if  he  had  professed 
himself  not  to  be  of  our  communion,  nor  of  the  communion  of  any 
other  Protestant  Church. — Burnet,  Hist.  Ref.  Part  iii.  preface  p.  5. 
vol.  1715. 

The  words  "real  and  essential  "  of  the  original  Declaration 
were,  however,  changed  into  "  corporal,"  and  it  will  be  seen 
that  Burnet  says  "we  know  who  was  the  author  of  that 
change :"  in  the  margin  he  puts  the  letters  "  D.  P.  G,"  meaning 
I  suppose  Dominus,  or  Doctor  Peter  Gunning,  and  then  he  tells 
us  why  the  change  was  made — a  statement  which  beyond  all 
question  leads  to  a  persuasion  amounting  almost  to  certainty, 
(1)  first,  that  the  term  now  substituted  was  meant  to  remove 
any  doubt  which  might  hang  upon  the  original  words ;  (2)  next, 
that  the  Declaration  not  only  was  not  designed  to  exclude  a 
very  high  doctrine  of  the  Real  Presence,  but  was  purposely 
intended  to  include  those  who  held  it,  if  only  they  dis- 
allowed Transubstantiation. 

But  there  is  another  piece  of  evidence  furnished  by 
Burnet  in  this  matter  in  the  following  passage  : — 

"  [Some  other  lesser  additions  were  made.  But  care  was  taken, 
that  nothing  should  be  altered,  so  as  it  had  been  moved  by  the 
Presbyterians ;  for  it  was  resolved  to  gratify  them  in  nothing.] 
One  important  addition  was  made,  chiefly  by  Qawdens  means ; 
he  pressed  that  a  declaration,  explaining  the  reasons  of  their  kneeling 
at  the  Sacrament,  which  had  been  in  King  Edward's  Liturgy,  but 
was  left  out  in  Queen  Elizabeth's  time,  should  again  be  set  where 
it  had  once  been.  The  Papists  were  highly  offended,  when  they 
saw  such  an  express  declaration  made  against  the  Real  Presence, 


72 

and  the  Duke  told  me  that  when  he  asked  Sheldon  how  they 
came  to  declare  against  a  doctrine,  which  he  had  been  instructed 
was  the  doctrine  of  the  Church,  Sheldon  answered,  ask  Gawden 
about  it,  who  is  a  Bishop  of  your  own  making ;  for  the  King  had 
ordered  his  promotion  for  the  service  he  had  done. — Hist .  of  his 
own  time.  Vol.  1,  p.  183,  fol.  ed.  1724. 

"  Now  who  was  "the  Duke  "  thus  speaking  to  Burnet?  I 
suppose  the  Duke  of  York,  afterwards  James  II :  *  if  so,  did 
his  views  of  the  Real  Presence  incline  to  the  Roman  or  to 
the  Anglican  phase  of  that  doctrine?  His  subsequent- 
history  will  probably  answer  that  it  was  to  the  Roman  aspect : 
in  that  case  it  is  easy  to  understand  that  he  should  suppose 
the  Declaration  to  be  directed  "against  a  doctrine,  which  he 
had  been  instructed  was  the  doctrine  of  the  Church  [of 
England]  :"  but  this  would  tend  to  shew  that  it  was  aimed 
at  Transubstantiation  and  nothing  more,  and  this  was  quite 
enough  to  account  for  the  fact  that  "  the  Papists  were  highly 
offended."  Is  there  any  evidence  to  shew  that  Gawden  did 
not  hold  high  views  of  the  Real  Presence  though  denying 
Transubstantiation  ?  I  am  unable  at  present  to  answer  this 
question.  If  he  did,  then  we  must  suppose  that  he  and 
Gunning  (if  it  was  Gunning,  as  I  believe,  to  whom  Burnet 
referred  in  the  other  passage)  co-operated  in  clearing  the  old 
Declaration  of  what  probably  they  thought  a  misleading 
term,  and  substituting  a  definition  not  liable  to  the  same 
objection  and  withal  only  denying  Transubstantiation.  If  he 
did  not,  then  we  may  imagine  that  though  Gawden  pressed 
for  the  re-insertion  of  the  Declaration,  he  only  gained  his 
point  by  conceding  the  use  of  an  expression  which  Gunning 

*  [For  Burnet,  writing  of  the  authorship  of  Etxuv  Ba<rtAtx»j»  says  "  ....  I 
was  not  a  little  surprised,  when  in  the  year  1673,  in  which  I  had  a  great  share  of 
favour  and  free  conversation  with  the  then  Duke  of  York,  afterwards  King 
James  the  Second,  as  he  suffered  me  to  talk  very  freely  to  him  about  matters  of 
religion,  and  as  I  was  arguing  with  him  somewhat  out  of  his  father's  book,  he 
told  me  that  book  was  not  of  his  father's  writing,  and  that  the  letter  to  the 
Prince  of  Wales  was  never  brought  to  him.  He  said,  Dr.  Gawden  writ  it :  after 
the  restoration  he  brought  the  Duke  of  Somerset  and  the  Earl  of  Southampton 
both  to  the  King  and  to  himself,  who  affirmed  that  they  knew  it  was  his 
writing ;  and  that  it  was  carried  down  by  the  Earl  of  Southampton,  and  shewed 
the  King  during  the  treaty  of  Newport,  who  read  it  and  approved  of  it  as  con- 
taining his  sense  of  things.  Upon  this  he  told  me,  that  though  Sheldon  and 
the  other  Bishops  opposed  Gawden  because  he  had  taken  the  Covenant,  yet  the 
merits  of  that  service  earned  it  for  him,  notwithstanding  the  opposition  made  to 
it."— (Hist,  of  Own  Time,  Vol.  I.  p.  51,  fol. ;  or  Vol.  I.  p.  81,  8vo.  Oxford, 
1823.)] 


73 

"  the  [supposed]  author  "  of  it  intended  to  admit  his  view  of 
the  Presence. 

But  we  cannot  fairly  presume  that  either  of  these  courses 
was  adopted  without  the  sanction  of  the  rest,  or  at  least  the 
major  part,  of  the  Bishops :  which  of  the  two  views  repre- 
sented their  own,  makes  no  material  difference  to  the  con- 
clusion which  seems  to  follow  from  it,  and  which  has  been 
already  stated,  namely,  That  the  Declaration  is  nothing  more 
than  a  negation  of  Transubstantiation. 

If,  indeed,  I  have  at  all  succeeded  in  shewing  that  this  was 
all  that  was  designed  by  the  original  Declaration,  the  circum- 
stances attending  its  revision  and  re-introduction,  so  far  as 
we  seem  to  know  them,  cannot  possibly  make  it  to  mean 
more.  Then  comes  the  very  natural  question — What  license 
is  to  be  allowed,  what  limits  are  to  be  imposed,  in  enuncia- 
ting the  Doctrine  of  the  Real  Presence  ?  Again,  I  venture 
to  repeat,  that  the  one  cardinal  point  of  TRANSUBSTANTIATION 
seems  to  have  been  meant  to  decide  it. 

The  expressions  used  by  Cranmer,  Ridley,  and  others 
whom  I  have  quoted :  the  way  in  which  they  professed  to 
accept  the  high  language  of  Antiquity  :  these  alike  appear 
to  say  that  they  had  no  wish  to  pare  down  any  statement 
which  should  invest  the  Sacrament  of  the  Altar  with  the 
greatest  possible  dignity  and  should  secure  for  it  ,the  deepest 
reverence,  if  only  it  did  not  run  up  into  an  admission  of 
that  particular  belief  against  which  they  were  contending. 
Indeed  considering  some  of  their  staments,  especially  those 
of  Ridley,  it  is  hard  to  say  why  they  were  burned  for  their 
alleged  recusancy.  Can  it  be  shewn  that  the  statements  of 
the  Bp.  of  Brechin  and  others,  now  complained  of,  exceed 
them  ?  How  near  Cranmer  and  Gardiner  approached  in 
1550  may  be  seen  from  the  following  passage  : 

In  his  reply  to  the  "  Defence  "  Gardiner  quoted  a  passage 
from  Bucer,  which  he  thus  translated : — 

" '  As  the  sun  is  truly  placed  determinately  in  one  place  of  the 
visible  heaven,  and  yet  is  truly  and  substantially  present  by  means  of 
his  beams  elsewhere  itt  the  world  abroad ;  so  our  Lord,  although 
He  be  comprehended  in  one  place  of  the  secret  and  divine  heaven, 
that  is  to  say,  the  glory  of  His  father,  yet,  nevertheless  by  His 

L 


74- 
word  and  holy  tokens  He  is  exhibit  present  truly  whole  God  and 
man,  and  therefore  in  substance  in  His  holy  supper ;  which 
presence  man's  mind,  giving  credit  to  His  words  and  tokens,  with 
no  less  certainty  acknowledgeth,  than  our  eyes  see,  and  have  the 
sun  present,  exhibited,  and  shewed  with 'his  corporal  light.  This  is 
a  deep  secret  matter,  and  of  the  New  Testament,  and  a  matter  of 
faith ;  and  therefore  herein  thoughts  be  not  to  be  received  of  such  a 
presentation  of  the  body  as  consisteth  in  the  manner  of  this  life 
transitory,  and  subject  to  suffer.  We  must  simply  cleave  to  the 
word  of  Christ,  and  faith  must  relieve  the  default  of  our  senses.'  " 
— Answer  p.  90. 

To  this  appeal  on  Gardiner's  part,  Cranmer  thus  answers : — 

"  In  this  comparison,  I  am  glad  that,  at  the  last,  we  be  come  so 
near  together;  for  you  be  almost  right  heartily  welcome  home,  and 
I  pray  you  let  us  shake  hands  together.  For  we  be  agreed,  as  me 
seemeth,  that  Christ's  Body  is  present,  and  the  same  Body  that  suf- 
fered ;  and  we  be  agreed  also  of  the  manner  of  His  presence.  For 
you  say  that  the  Body  of  Christ  is  not  present  but  after  a  spiritual 
manner,  and  so  say  I  also.  And  if  there  be  any  difference  between 
us  two,  it  is  but  a  little,  and  in  this  point  only ;  that  I  say  that 
Christ  is  but  spiritually  in  the  ministration  of  the  Sacrament,  and 
you  say  that  he  is  but  after  a  spiritual  manner  in  the  Sacrament. 
And  yet  you  say  that  he  is  corporally  in  the  Sacrament,  as  who 
should  say  that  there  were  a  difference  between  spiritually,  and  a 
spiritual  manner ;  and  that  it  were  not  all  one  to  say  that  Christ  is 
there  only  after  a  spiritual  manner,  and  not  only  spiritually. 

"  But  if  the  substance  of  the  Sun  be  here  corporally  present  with 
us  upon  earth,  then  I  grant  that  Christ's  Body  is  so  likewise:  so 
that  he  of  us  two  that  erreth  in  the  one,  let  him  be  taken  for  a  vain 
man,  and  to  ^err  also  in  the  other.  Therefore  I  am  content  that  the 
reader  judge  indifferently  between  you  and  me,  in  the  corporal  Pre- 
sence of  the  Sun,  and  he  that  is  found  to  err,  and  to  be  a  fool  therein, 
let  him  be  judged  to  err  also  in  the  corporal  Presence  of  Christ's 
Body. 

"  But  now,  Master  Bucer,  help  this  man  at  need  :  for  he  that  hath 
ever  hitherto  cried  out  against  you,  now  being  at  a  pinch,  driven  to 
his  shifts,  crieth  for  help  upon  you  :  and,  although  he  was  never  your 
friend,  yet  extend  your  charity  to  help  him  in  his  necessity.  But 
Master  Bucer  saith  not  so  much  as  you  do  ;  and  yet  if  you  both  said 
that  the  beams  of  the  Sun  be  of  the  same  substance  with  the  Sun,  who 
would  believe  either  of  you  both  ?  Is  the  light  of  the  candle  the  sub- 
stance of  the  candle  ?  or  the  light  of  the  fire  the  substance  of  the  fire  ? 
Or  is  the  beams  of  the  Sun  anything  but  the  clear  light  of  the 
Sun  ?  Now,  as  you  said  even  now  of  me,  if  you  err  so  far  from  the 
true  judgment  of  natural  things,  that  all  men  may  perceive  your 
error,  what  marvel  is  it  if  you  err  in  heavenly  things  ? 

"  And  why  should  you  be  offended  with  this  my  saying,  that  Christ 


75 

is  spiritually  present  in  the  assembly  of  such  as  be  gathered  to- 
gether in  His  name  ?  And  how  can  you  conclude  hereof,  that  this 
is  a  plain  abolition  of  the  mystery  of  the  Sacrament,  because  that 
in  the  celebration  of  the  Sacrament  I  say  that  Christ  is  spiritually 
present  ?  Have  not  you  confessed  yourself  that  Christ  is  in  the 
Sacrament  but  after  a  spiritual  manner  ?  And  after  that  manner  He 
is  also  among  them  that  be  assembled  togethether  in  His  name. 
And  if  they  that  say  so  do  abolish  the  mystery  of  the  Sacrament, 
then  do  you  abolish  it  yourself,  by  saying  that  Christ  is  but  after  a 
spiritual  manner  in  the  Sacrament,  after  which  manner  you  say  also 
that  He  is  in  them  that  be  gathered  together  in  His  name,  as  well 
as  I  do,  that  say  He  is  spiritually  in  both.  But  he  that  is  disposed 
to  pick  quarrels,  and  to  calumniate  all  things,  what  can  be  spoken 
so  plainly,  or  meant  so  sincerely,  but  he  will  wrest  it  unto  a  wrong 
sense  ?  I  say  that  Christ  is  spiritually  and  by  grace  in  His  sup- 
per as  He  is  when  two  or  three  be  gathered  together  in  His  name, 
meaning  that  with  both  He  is  Spiritually,  and  with  neither  COf- 
poraJly ;  and  yet  I  say  not  that  there  is  no  difference.  For  this  dif- 
ference there  is,  that  with  the  one  He  is  sacramentally,  and  with  the 
other  not  sacramentally,  except  they  be  gathered  together  in  His 
name  to  receive  the  Sacrament.  Nevertheless,  the  selfsame  Christ 
is  present  in  both,  nourisheth  and  feedeth  both,  if  the  Sacrament  be 
rightly  received.  But  that  is  only  spiritually,  as  I  say,  and  only 
after  a  spiritual  manner,  as  you  say. 

"  And  you  say  further,  that  before  we  receive  the  Sacrament,  we 
must  come  endued  with  Christ,  and  seemly  clothed  with  Him.  But 
whosoever  is  endued  and  clothed  with  Christ  hath  Christ  present 
with  him  after  a  spiritual  manner,  and  hath  received  Christ  whole 
both  God  and  man,  or  else  he  could  not  have  everlasting  life.  And 
therefore  is  Christ  present  as  well  in  Baptism  as  in  the  Lord's  Sup- 
per. For  in  Baptism  be  we  endued  with  Christ,  and  seemly 
clothed  with  Him,  as  well  as  in  his  Holy  Supper  we  eat  and  drink 
Him. — Ibid  pp.  91-2. 

The  illustration  here  used  is  Ridley's  also :  I  am  not  com- 
petent to  decide  the  nice  philosophical  question  which  alone 
seemed  to  divide  the  belief  of  Cranmer  and  Gardiner  at  that 
time :  but  it  appears  to  deserve  a  careful  consideration.  Ab- 
solute lack  of  time  hinders  any  pursuit  now  of  the  thoughts 
which  it  involves  and  of  the  enquiries  which  I  have  only 
just  been  able  to  indicate  in  these  latter  pages :  they  have 
been  thrown  hastily  together,  as  possibly  furnishing  some  few 
suggestions  which  may  shew  the  importance  of  further 
examination  and  serious  deliberation  before  arriving  at  any 
conclusions,  supposed  to  be  deducible  from  the  Declaration 
on  Kneeling,  adverse  to  recently  promulged  and  now  con- 


76 

tested  statements  on  the  doctrine  of  the  Real  Presence  in  the 
Holy  Eucharist. 

In  this  crude  shape  and  with  all  their  imperfections  I  have 
ventured,  my  Lord,  to  address  these  remarks  to  your  Lord- 
ship, in  an  unpublished  and  very  incomplete  form  :  thinking 
that  if  they  do  perchance  contain  any  new  fact  or  argument 
they  may  not  be  unacceptable  to  your  Lordship  at  this 
seemingly  critical  time ;  and  beliving  also  that  in  so  doing  I 
am  not  wanting  in  due  respect  to  your  high  and  responsible 
Office  in  the  Church  of  Christ. 

I  have  the  honour  to  be,  my  Lord, 

Your  Lordship's  faithful  Servant  in  Christ, 

PRESBYTER  ANGLICANUS. 

**#  P.S.  Wholly  too  late  to  examine  it,  and  much  less  to 
have  it  copied  and  printed  in  time  to  accompany  this  letter,  I 
noticed  in  looking  through  Mr.  Lemon's  recently  published 
Calendar  of  State  Papers,  an  apparently  important  Document 
in  "Vol.  xv.  Domestic.  Edward  VI.  No.  15,  Oct.  7,  1552," 
intitled  "  Archbp.  Cranmer  to  the  Council.  Has  received 
their  directions  that  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer  should  be 
diligently  pursued,  and  the  printer's  errors  therein  amended. 
Arguments  defending  the  practice  of  Kneeling  at  the 
Sacrament  ?  " 

It  will  be  seen  that  the  date  of  this  letter  coincides  with 
the  dates  from  which  I  have  argued  at  p.  37  that  resistance  was 
probably  made  by  the  Bishops  to  the  demand  for  withdrawing 
the  order  for  Kneeling  at  Communion.  I  need  scarcely  say 
that  Cranmer's  Arguments  for  Kneeling,  contained  in  this 
State  Paper,  may  throw  light  upon  the  purpose  of  the 
original  Declaration  :  and  this  is  a  strong  ground  for  suspend- 
ing judgment  upon  it.  I  hope  to  produce  this  State  Paper 
with  as  little  delay  as  may  be  :  and  at  the  same  time  to  com- 
plete this  letter. 

May  25th,  1858. 


77 


POSTSCRIPT,  No.  2. 

Since  the  above  Letter  was  printed  I  have  been  endeavour- 
ing to  collect  any  other  materials  which  might  confirm  or 
further  elucidate  the  views  and  position  therein  taken :  the 
result  of  such  searches  as  time  and  opportunity  afforded, 
together  with  some  observations  unavoidably  omitted  in  the 
Letter,  I  now  submit  for  consideration  in  this  Postcript ; 
only  making  this  further  preliminary  remark, — that  it  would 
probably  be  an  error  to  suppose  that  a  longer  investigation 
would  not  furnish  new  or  additional  facts  and  arguments  of 
the  like  character  and  tendency. 

I.  And,  first  of  all,  it  will  be  best  to  produce  and  notice 
the  State  Paper  mentioned  in  my  former  P.S.  The  following 
is  an  accurate  transcript  of  the  original  Document  remaining 
in  the  STATE  PAPER  OFFICE,  and  marked : — 

"  Domestic.     Edward  VI.  Vol.  15,  No.  15." 

"  After  my  right  humble  commendations  unto  yor  good  Lord- 
shipps — Where  I  understaunde  by  your  L.  Itres  that  the  Kings  Matie  his 
pleasure  is  that  the  boke  of  commen  service  shoulde  bee  diligentlye 
perused  and  therin  the  prynters  errourse  to  bee  amendid  :  I  shall 
travaile  therin  to  the  uttermost  of  my  power  albeit  I  had  neade  first 
to  have  had  the  boke  written  wch  was  passed  by  acte  of  Parliament 
and  sealed  w*  the  greate  seale  wch  remaynith  in  the  handes  of 
Mr  Spilman  clerke  of  the  Parlament,  who  is  not  in  London  nor  I 
cannot  learne  where  he  is.  Nevertheles  I  have  gotten  the  copie 
wch  Mr  Spilman  delivered  to  the  printers  to  printe  by,  wch  I  thinke 
shall  serve  well  enough.  And  where  I  understaunde  further  by 
yor  L.  Itres,  that  some  bee  offended  w*  kneeling  at  the  tyme  of  the 
receavinge  of  the  Sacrament,  and  woulde  that  I  callinge  to  me  the 
bushop  of  London  and  some  other  learned  men  as  Mr  Peter  Martyr 
or  suche  like  should  w*  theim  expend  and  waye  the  said  prescription 
of  kneelinge  whether  it  bee  fitt  to  remayn  as  a  commaundement  or  to 
bee  left  out  of  the  boke.  I  shall  accomplish  the  Kings  Matie  his 
commaundement  albeeit  I  trust  that  wee  w*  just  ballaunce  waied 
this  at  the  makinge  of  the  boke,  and  not  onlie  wee  but  a  greate 
menny  bushops  and  other  of  the  best  learned  w4in  this  realme  and 
appoincted  for  that  purpose.  And  nowe  the  boke  beinge  read  and 
approved  by  thole  state  of  the  Realme  in  the  high  courte  of  Parla- 
ment w1  the  Kings  Matie  his  roiall  assent,  y*  this  shoulde  bee  nowe 
altered  againe  weout  Parlament,  of  what  importaunce  this  matter  is, 


78 

I  raferr  to  your  L,  wisdome  to  considre.  I  knowe  yor  L.  wisdome 
to  bee  suche,  that  I  trust  ye  will  not  bee  moved  w*  thes  gloriouse 
and  unquiet  spirites  wch  can  like  nothing  but  that  is  after  their  own 
fansye  and  cease  not  to  make  troble  and  disquietnes  when  thinges 
bee  most  quiet  and  in  goode  ordre.  If  suche  men  should  bee 
hearde  although  the  boke  were  made  everye  yere  anewe,  yet  should 
it  not  lacke  faultes  in  their  opinion.  But  (saie  thei)  it  is  not  com- 
maunded  in  the  scripture  to  kneele,  and  whatsoever  is  not  com- 
maunded  in  the  scripture  is  against  the  scripture  and  utterly  unlaufull 
and  ungodlie.  But  this  saing  is  the  chief  foundation  of  therror  of 
thanabaptists  and  of  divers  other  sectes.  This  sainge  is  a  subvertion 
of  all  ordre  aswell  in  religion  as  in  common  pollicye.  If  this  sainge 
bee  true,  take  awaie  the  hole  boke  of  service.  For  what  should  men 
travell  to  sett  an  ordre  in  the  forme  of  service,  if  no  ordre  can  bee 
sett,  but  that  is  alreadye  prescribed  by  the  scripture.  And  because 
I  will  not  troble  yor  L.  w*  recitinge  of  manny  scriptures  or  proves  in 
this  matier,  whosoever  teacheth  anny  suche  doctrine  (if  yor  L.  will 
geave  me  leave)  I  will  sett  my  fote  by  his  to  bee  tried  by  fier,  that 
his  doctrine  is  untrue,  and  not  onlie  untrue  but  also  seditiouse  and 
p[er]illouse  to  bee  hearde  of  anny  subjectes,  as  a  thinge  breakinge 
the  bridle  of  obedience  and  losinge  theim  from  the  bonde  of  all 
princes  lawes.  My  good  L.  I  praye  youe  to  considre  that  there  bee 
two  praiers  wch  go  before  the  receavinge  of  the  Sacrament  and  two 
ymmediatlie  followe  all  wch  tyme  the  people  praying  and  geavinge 
thanckes,  do  kneele  ;  and  what  inconvenience  there  is  that  it  may 
not  bee  thus  ordered  I  knowe  not.  If  the  kneelinge  of  the  people 
shoulde  bee  discontynued  for  the  tyme  of  the  receavinge  of  the 
Sacrament,  so  y*  at  the  recept  therof  thei  shoulde  rise  up  and  staunde " 
or  sitt,  and  then  ymmediatlie  kneele  downe  againe,  it  should  rather 
importe  a  oontemptuouse  then  a  reverent  receavinge  of  the  Sacra- 
ment. But  it  is  not  expreslye  conteigned  in  the  scripture  (saie  thei) 
that  Christ  ministred  the  sacrament  to  his  apostles  kneelinge.  Nor 
thei  finde  it  not  expresly  in  scriptur  that  he  ministerejd  it  staundinge 
or  sittinge  ;  but  if  wee  will  followe  the  plaine  wourdes  of  scripture, 
wee  shall  rather  receave  it  lyinge  downe  on  the  grounde,  as  the 
eustome  of  the  wourlde  at  that  tyme  almost  every  where,  and  as  the 
Tartars  and  Turkes  use  yet  at  this  daie  to  eate  their  meate  lying 
upon  the  grounde.  And  the  wourdes  of  the  Evangelist  importe  the 
same,  wch  bee  ctvawupou  and  ctvoLTrwru  whiche  signifie  properlie  to 
lie  downe  upon  the  floure  or  grounde  and  not  to  sitt  apon  a  forme  or 
stole.  A  [nd]  the  same  speache  use  thevangelists  where  thei  sh  [ew] 
that  Christ  fead  five  thowsaunde  w*  v  loves,  wh  [ere]]  it  is  plainlie 
expressede  that  thei  satt  down  upon  the  grounde  and  not  upon  stoles. 
I  beseche  yor  L.  to  take  in  good  parte  this  my  longe  babelinge  wch  I 
write  as  of  my  self  onlie,  because  the  bushop  of  London  is  not  yet 
come,  and  yor  L.  required  aunswer  w*  speede,  and  therfore  ame  I 
constrayned  to  make  some  aunswer  to  yor  L.  afore  his  coming.  And 
thus  I  praye  god  longe  to  preserve  yor  L.  and  to  increase  the  same 


79 

in  all  prosperitie  and  godlines.     At  Lambieth  This  vijth  of  Octobr 
1552. 

"  Yor  Lordeshipps  to  commaunde 

"  T.  Cantr 

(Indorsed)  "  To  my  veray  goode  Lordes  of  the  Kings  most 
honorable  councell. 

"  7,  octob.  1552  Bish.  of  Cant'b.  to  ye  Cll.  de  gennaflect  in  com- 
munio. 


Now  it  will  be  seen  that  this  Letter  of  Archbishop  Cranmer 
most  entirely  confirms  the  suggestions  I  have  offered  in  p.  36: 
for  although  it  makes  no  allusion  to  any  intended  Declaration 
on  Kneeling  to  be  added  to  the  Book,  it  proves  distinctly,  as 
I  surmized,  that  "objections  were  urged  upon  the  Council 
against  the  direction  "  to  kneel  at  receiving  the  Sacrament, 
"  and  that  its  omission  was  pressed  for."    It  further  attests  the 
conviction  there  expressed,   that  "  the  considerations  which  " 
had  "prompted  the  Direction"  to  kneel  at  receiving  "  were 
doubtless  equally  weighty  in  inducing  the  Bishops  and  the 
Privy  CouDcil  to  determine  on  retaining  it  in  the  Book." 
Nothing  can  be  plainer  than  that  Cranmer  was  deeply  im- 
pressed with  the  necessity  of  not  yielding  this  point,  as  well 
as  other  points,  to  the  "  gloriouse  and  unquiet  spirites  "    of 
that  day  ;  and  his  language  in  this  Letter  ought  to  have  con- 
siderable weight  with  those  in  our  own  time  who,  while  pro- 
fessing their  great  reverence  for  the  Archbishop,  are  treading 
in  the  very  steps  of  that  extreme  Reforming  party  in  1552 
whose  conduct  the  Primate  thus  severely  censures.       That 
Ridley  and  the  other  leading  Bishops  concurred  with  Cranmer 
in  this  determination  as  to  kneeling  at  Communion  might  be 
inferred  from  the  consideration  that  the  Archbishop  was  pro- 
bably disposed  to  go  beyond  them  in  consulting  the  prejudices 
of  those  whom  they  were  all  desirous  to  comprehend  if  they 
could  in  the  Church  of  England  :  but  here  is  Cranmer's  testi- 
mony that  "  at  the  makinge  of  the  boke  "  this  "  prescription  of 
kneelinge"  was  determined  upon  by  "  a  great  menny  bushops 
and  other  of  the  best  learned  "  :  we  may  be  sure,  therefore, 
that  they,  like  him,  refused  to  alter  it.     That  the  King  and 
Council  deferred  to  the  Bishops  even  if  they  differed  from 


80 

them  (of  which,  however,  there  is  no  proof),  is  clear  from 
the  fact  that  the  Order  was  not  withdrawn. 

Probably,  however,  it  will  be  objected — that  the  Reasons 
which  Cranmer  assigns  in  this  Letter  for  "  Kneeling  at  the 
tyme  of  the  receavinge  of  the  Sacrament "  are  no  proof  that 
he  held  the  Doctrine  of  the  Real  Presence.  But  surely  it 
would  be  fairer  to  ask— Do  they  contain  any  indication  that 
he  did  not  hold  it  ?  In  answering  this  question,  it  is  of  con- 
sequence to  bear  in  mind  the  character  of  the  complainants 
and  the  ground  of  their  complaint :  both  are  described  by 
the  Archbishop  in  his  Letter :  he  saw  clearly  enough  that 
they  were  not  to  be  satisfied  with  such  a  concession  as  they 
required,  even  if  he  had  been  disposed  to  make  it ;  and  we 
may  well  believe  him  to  have  felt  that,  whatever  their  faith 
or  misbelief  as  to  the  Real  Presence,  any  argument  upon  it 
would  be  out  of  place^  with  those  who  demanded  license  to 
do  as  they  list  because  "  it  is  not  expressly  conteigned  in 
the  scripture  (saie  thei)  that  Christ  ministered  the  sacrament 
to  his  apostles  kneelinge."  It  was,  then,  only  prudent  and 
politic  in  one  who  was  evidently  bent  upon  carrying  his  point, 
not  to  risk  the  loss  of  it  by  furnishing  the  Council  with  argu- 
ments which  perhaps  some  of  them  might  refuse  to  endorse, 
and  which,  even  if  all  concurred  in  them,  would  be  no  answer 
to  the  opponents  of  the  Rubric,  whatever  their  opinion  on 
the  then  debated  question  of  Christ's  presence  in  the  Sacra- 
ment :  for,  no  doubt,  they  would  have  retorted—  That  the 
Apostles  did  not  kneel  even  when  Christ  was  visibly  present. 

It  would  be  most  unjust  therefore  to  Cranmer,  to  accuse 
him,  on  such  a  ground  as  this,  of  not  holding  the  Catholic 
Doctrine  :  rather  it  would  be  due  to  him  to  think  that  he  was 
unwilling  to  peril  its  acceptance  by  employing  it  to  defeat  an 
opposition  which,  however  truly,  was  not  then  ostensibly 
based  upon  the  non-recognition  of  it. 

Moreover,  it  would  appear  that  the  Archbishop  quite 
understood  the  weakness  of  those  who  professed  to  "  bee 
offended,"  and  well  knew  how  to  turn  their  own  inconsistency 
into  an  argument  for  the  rule  and  practice  which  ^he  was 
defending.  For  it  seems  that  they  limited  their  objection  to 
kneeling,  to  "  the  tyme  of  the  receavinge  of  the  Sacrament "  : 


81 

this,  no  doubt,  was  highly  important  in  the  estimation  of  the 
Zwinglian  and  stricter  Sacramentarian  party,  who  wished  to 
disconnect  from  the  reception  of  the  Eucharistic  elements 
every  idea  of  their  being  the  media  of  conveying  to  any  the 
Body  and  Blood  of  Christ.  To  kneel  at  receiving  them 
would  be  the  recognition  of  a  belief  which  even  Calvin  and 
the  more  moderate  Sacramentarians  held — that  simultaneously 
with  the  participation  of  the  bread  and  wine  the  Body  and 
Blood  of  Christ  were  communicated  to  the  elect,  or  those  in  a 
state  of  grace.  It  is  obvious,  therefore,  that  if  the  protesta- 
tion thus  involved  in  not  kneeling  at  the  time  of  receiving, 
were  allowed,  kneeling  at  other  parts  of  the  Service  would 
not  be  an  obstacle  with  them,  though  they  might  prefer  some 
other  attitude.  It  is  easy,  then,  to  conceive,  that  under 
these  circumstances  Cranmer  felt  it  necessary  to  meet  the 
objectors  on  their  own  ground,  and  to  furnish  the  Council 
with  an  answer  which  (while  perhaps  it  was  necessary  for 
some  of  the  Councillors  themselves)  should  enable  it  to 
appease  the  complainants  without  adverting  to  any  Doctrinal 
dispute. 

The  consideration,  then,  that  the  objectors  acquiesced  in 
the  rule  of  kneeling  at  other  parts  of  the  Communion  Office 
(and  thus  maintained  some  external  reverence  in  what  they 
regarded  as  no  more  than  a  commemorative  rite)  coupled 
with  their  non-belief  of  any  Objective  Presence  resulting 
from  Consecration,  appears  to  have  provided  the  Archbishop 
with  his  answer  to  their  cavil :  he  simply  contents  himself 
with  calling  the  Council's  attention  to  the  fact  "  that  there 
bee  two  praiers  which  e^o  before  the  receavinge  of  the  Sacra- 
ment and  two  ymmediatlie  followe  all  which  tyme  the  people 
praying  and  geavinge  thanckes,  do  kneele".  These  four 
prayers  were,  (1)  The  Prayer  of  access,  "  We  do  not  pre- 
sume," &c. ;  (2)  The  Consecration  Prayer,  "  Almighty  God 
our  heavenly  Father,"  &c. ;  (3)  The  Lord's  Prayer ;  (4)  The 
Prayer  of  Thanksgiving,  "  O  Lord  and  heavenly  Father,"  &c., 
or,  "  Almighty  and  everlasting  God,"  &c.,  as  in  our  present 
Office.  On  what  principle,  asks  the  Archbishop,  in  effect, 
can  they  kneel  during  these  prayers,  and  refuse  to  kneel 


during  that  act  which  they  would  acknowledge  as  designed  to 
quicken  their  intellectual  apprehension  of  Christ  —  which 
perhaps  some  of  them  would  even  regard  as  the  ohsignation 
of  the  benefits  of  Christ's  death  ?  They  cannot  merely  wish, 
he  virtually  says,  to  exhibit  less  devotion  at  the  moment 
when  they  would  intensify  their  mental  union  with  Christ, 
or  realize  the  sealing  of  His  grace,  than  when  they  ask  Him 
to  bestow  these  blessings  or  thank  Him  for  having  vouchsafed 
them !  Even  on  their  own  view  of  the  nature  and  use  of 
the  Lord's  Supper,  if  "  at  the  recept "  of  the  Sacrament  the 
people  "  shoulde  rise  up  and  staunde  or  sitt,  and  then 
ymmediately  kneele  down  againe,  it  should  rather  import  a 
contemptuouse  then  a  reverent  receavinge  of  the  Sacrament." 

This,  I  think,  is  the  very  lowest  construction  which  can 
be  put  upon  the  Archbishop's  Letter :  his  argument  was  one 
which  the  necessity  of  the  case  appears  to  have  required,  and 
which,  were  it  needful,  might  be  justified  by  the  example  of 
an  Apostle  who  said,  "  being  crafty  I  caught  you  with  guile." 
Yet  it  must  not  be  taken  as  the  measure  of  Cranmer's  own 
belief:  that,  to  be  rightly  estimated,  must  be  sought  either 
in  his  own  positive  teaching  or  in  controversies  with  the 
Papal  party :  in  these  we  should  expect  to  find  how  much 
he  deliberately  held ;  and  some  tolerable  notion  of  what  he 
did  believe  on  the  Real  Presence  will  have  been  gathered 
from  the  passages  already  cited. 

I  can  readily  imagine,  however,  some  one  appealing  to  this 
Letter  from  Cranmer  to  the  Council  as  a  proof  of  what  has  been 
sometimes  asserted — that  the  Archbishop,  when  he  prepared 
Edward's  Second  Book,  did  not  believe  in  Consecration.  It 
will  be  asked,  I  have  no  doubt,  does  not  the  fact  that  Cranmer 
here  speaks  of  the  Prayer  of  Consecration  in  precisely  the 
same  language  which  he  applies  to  the  Prayer  of  Access  and 
to  the  two  Post-communion  Prayers,  prove  that  he  could  not 
have  attributed  any  peculiar  value  to  the  act  of  Consecrating 
the  Eucharist  ? 

For  the  reasons  already  given  it  would  be  enough  to 
answer — that  Cranmer's  view  of  Consecration  must  not  be 
gathered  from  language  used  on  an  occasion  when  to  have 


83 

urged  the  importance  of  Consecration  would  probably  have 
only  had  the  mischievous  effect  of  provoking  a  clamorous 
demand  to  expunge  the  Prayer  itself  from  the  Book  which 
had  just  received  the  sanction  of  the  Crown  and  of  Parli- 
ament ;  and  that  Cranmer  had  some  reason  to  fear  the 
Council  would  not  refuse  to  employ  its  extensive  powers  in 
altering  the  Book,  if  it  so  pleased  them,  is  plain  from  his 
referring  it  to  their  "  wisdome  to  considre  "  of  "  what  impor- 
taunce  "  it  was,  even  for  the  Rubric  on  Kneeling  to  "  bee 
nowe  altered  againe  without  Parliament."  Yet,  perhaps,  in 
that  very  silence  which,  was  only  politic,  we  may  trace  a 
latent  defence  of  Consecration.  It  can  scarcely  have  been 
absent  from  the  Archbishop's  mind — that  the  objectors  to  the 
Rubric  must  have  been  fully  conscious  of  the  importance 
attached  to  this  Prayer  of  Consecration  by,  at  least,  the 
greater  proportion  of  a  Clergy  who  had  only  four  years  be- 
fore been  constantly  using  the  old  Mass  Office,  and  who  at 
that  very  time  were  accustomed  to  so  definite  a  form  of  Con- 
secration as  that  in  Edward's  1st.  Book.  His  own  sagacity 
moreover,  must  surely  have  suggested  to  him  that  (though 
the  Prayer  as  altered  in  the  2nd  Book,  and  especially  the 
omission  of  the  Rubrics  requiring  the  manual  acts,  might 
satisfy  the  Clerical  as  well  as  the  Lay  malcontents)  the  com- 
plainants could  not  disguise  from  themselves  the  distinctive 
character  of  a  Prayer  which  "  the  Priest  "  was  still  ordered  to 
offer  "  standing  up  "  and  which  they  would  certainly  believe 
him,  in  the  majority  of  cases,  to  use  with  the  same  intention 
which  he  had  always  had  :  not  to  say  that  they  would  expect 
to  find  the  Priests,  generally,  continuing  to  use  those  same 
Manual  Acts  to  which  up  to  .that  time  they  had  been  accus- 
tomed and  which,  be  it  observed,  they  were  not  forbidden  to 
employ:  for  to  suppose  that  the  Clergy  of  ]552  in  any 
numbers,  and,  much  more,  suddenly,  made  so  great  a  change 
in  their  habitual  practice ;  is  a  notion  as  wholly  improbable  as 
the  supposition — that  if  the  present  Prayer  Book  were  now 
revised  and  the  Rubrics  in  the  Consecration  Prayer  omitted, 
any  considerable  number  of  the  Clergy  of  the  present  day 
would  cease  to  Consecrate  the  Eucharist  with  the  Manual 
Acts  now  prescribed. 


84 

Now  mark  how  the  Archbishop  turns  to  account  this  im- 
pression, which  we  cannot  deny  he  was  likely  to  have  had,  of 
the  objectors'  mental  consciousness  as  to  the  prevailing  belief 
touching  this  Prayer :  he  makes  no  special  allusion  to  the 
Prayer  itself;  that  would,  in  all  likelihood,  have  been  a 
signal  for  reclamation  on  their  part  and  would  have  added 
force  to  their  objection  to  kneeling  at  the  reception,  as  recog- 
nizing a  Real  Presence  due  to  Consecration :  but,  ignoring 
for  the  time  their  own  disbelief  and  their  conviction  of  others' 
belief  in  Consecration,  he  contents  himself  with  noticing  the 
fact  that  at  that  Prayer  and  three  other  Prayers  intimately 
related  to  it  "  the  people  praying  and  geaving  thanckes,  do 
kneele  ;"  leaving  it  to  them  to  reconcile  it  to  their  own  con- 
sciences how  (while  objecting  to  kneel  at  receiving)  they 
could  unite  in  an  external  act  which  implied  acquiesence  in  a 
theory  they  themselves  disavowed.  It  was  no  part  of  his 
duty  then  to  sound  in  unwilling  ears  the  Doctrine  of  the 
Church  :  enough  if  he  could  compel  uncandid  minds  to  yield 
assent  to  a  Rule  which  he  was  not  prepared  to  abandon, 
though  that  assent  was  secured  by  an  argument  which  con- 
demned their  own  palpable  inconsistency. 

But  we  are  not  without  distinct  evidence  as  to  Cranmer's 
views  at  this  time  touching  Consecration  :  his  "  Defence  of 
the  True  and  Catholic  Doctrine  of  the  Sacrament "  (already 
quoted  at  pp.  19 — 26)  will  tell  us  what  they  were:  the 
"  Defence  "  was  written  in  1550  i.e.  the  year  after  the  publi- 
cation of  Edward's  1st  Book;  its  object  and  the  Archbishop's 
status  at;  that  time  on  the  Eucharistical  question  are  thus 
described  by  Foxe,  A.D.  1563,  in  his  "  LIFE,  STATE,  AND 
STORY  OF  THOMAS  CRANMER  :"  the  Italics  are  mine : — 

"  During  all  this  mean  time  of  King  Henry  aforesaid,  until  the 
entering  of  King  Edward,  it  seerneth  that  Cranmer  was  scarcely 
yet  thoroughly  persuaded  in  the  right  knowledge  of  the  Sacrament, 
or  at  least,  was  not  yet  fully  ripened  in  the  same  :  wherein  shortly 
after  he  being  more  groundly  confirmed  by  conference  with  Bishop 
Riiley,  in  process  of  time  did  so  profit  in  more  riper  knowledge, 
that  at  last  he  took  uppn  him  the  defence  of  that  whole  doctrine, 
that  is,  to  refute  and  throw  down  first,  the  corporal  presence ; 
secondly,  the phantastical  transubstantiation  ;  thirdly,  the  idolatrous 


85 

adoration  ;  fourthly,  the  false  error  of  the  papists,  that  wicked  men 
do  eat  the  natural  body  of  Christ ;  and  lastly,  the  blasphemous 
sacrifice  of  the  mass.  Whereupon  in  conclusion  he  wrote  five  books 
for  the  public  instruction  of  the  Church  of  England,  which  in- 
struction yet  to  this  day  standeth  and  is  received  in  this  Church  of 
England. " — Cranmer  on  the  Lord's  Supper.  Works,  Parker  Society 
p.  xix,  or  Foxe,  Acts  and  Mon.  Vol.  8,  p.  34,  ed.  1849. 

The  following  is  Cranmer's  statement  upon  Consecration, 
as  quoted  by  him  from  The  Defence  in  his  Answer  to  Bishop 
Gardiner's  strictures  upon  that  Book  : — 

"  And  now  I  will  come  to  the  saying  of  St.  Ambrose,  which  is 
always  in  their  mouths.  '  Before  the  consecration,'  saith  he,  as  they 
allege,  '  it  is  bread,  but  after  the  words  of  the  consecration  it  is  the 
body  of  Christ.' 

"  For  answer  hereunto,  it  must  be  first  known  what  consecration  is. 

"  Consecration  is  the  separation  of  anything  from  a  profane  and 
worldly  use  unto  a  spiritual  and  godly  use. 

"  And  therefore  when  usual  and  common  water  is  taken  from  other 
uses,  and  put  to  the  use  of  baptism  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and 
of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  then  it  may  rightly  be  called  con- 
secrated water,  that  is  to  say,  water  put  to  an  holy  use. 

"  Even  so,  when  common  bread  and  wine  be  taken  and  severed 
from  other  bread  and  wine  to  the  use  of  the  holy  communion,  that 
portion  of  bread  and  wine,  although  it  be  of  the  same  substance  that 
the  other  is  from  the  which  it  is  severed,  yet  it  is  now  called  con- 
secrated, or  holy  bread  and  holy  wine. 

"  Not  that  the  bread  and  wine  have  or  can  have  any  holiness  in 
them,  but  that  they  be  used  to  an  holy  work,  and  represent  holy  and 
godly  things.  And  therefore  St.  Dionyse  (De  Eccl.  Hierar.  cap.  3,) 
called  the  bread-  holy  bread,  and  the  cup  an  holy  cup,  as  soon  as  they 
be  set  upon  the  altar  to  the  use  of  the  holy  communion.* 

"  But  specially  they  may  be  called  holy  and  consecrated,  when 
they  be  separated  to  that  holy  use  by  Christ's  own  words,  which  He 
spake  for  that  purpose,  saying  of  the  bread,  *  This  is  my  body,'  and 
of  the  wine,  '  This  is  my  blood.' 

"  So  that  commonly  the  authors,  before  those  words  be  spoken,  do 
take  the  bread  and  wine  but  as  other  common  bread  and  wine  ;  but 
after  those  words  be  pronounced  over  them,  then  they  take  them  for 
consecrated  and  holy  bread  and  wine. 

"  Not  that  the  bread  and  wine  can  be  partakers  of  any  holiness  or 
godliness,  or  can  be  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ,  but  that  they  re- 
present the  very  body  and  blood  of  Christ,  and  the  holy  food  and 

*  This  statement  of  Cranmer's  at  once  suggests  that,  though  in  Edward's  2nd 
Book  the  Rubric  forthe  oblation  of  the  Elements  was  omitted,  the  Abp.  could  not 
have  contemplated  the  modern  (but  now  pronounced  illegal)  practice  of  neglecting 
this  act :  for,  as  will  be  seen  presently,  his  views  were  the  same  in  1552. 


86 

nourishment  which  we  have  by  him.  And  so  they  be  called  by  the 
names  of  the  body  .and  blood  of  Christ,  as  the  sign,  token,  and  figure 
is  called  by  the  name  of  the  very  thing  which  it  sheweth  and 
signifieth. 

"  And  therefore  as  St.  Ambrose,  in  the  words  before  cited  by  the 
adversaries,  saith,  that  '  before  the  consecration  it  is  bread,  and  after 
the  consecration  it  is  Christ's  body,'  so  in  other  places  he  doth  more 
plainly  set  forth  his  meaning,  saying  these  words  :  '  Before  the 
benediction  of  the  heavenly  words,  it  is  called  another  kind  of  thing  ; 
but  after  the  consecration,  is  signified  the  body  of  Christ.  Likewise 
before  the  consecration  it  is  called  another  thing  ;  but  after  the  con- 
secration it  is  named  the  blood  of  Christ  (De  his  qui  mysteris 
initiantur,  cap.  ult.)  And  again  he  saith  :  '  When  I  treated  of  the 
Sacraments,  I  told  you  that  that  thing  which  is  offered  before  the 
words  of  Christ,  is  called  bread  :  but  when  the  words  of  Christ  be 
pronounced,  then  it  is  not  called  bread,  but  it  is  called  by  the  name 
of  Christ's  body.'  (De  sacramentis,  Lib.  v.  cap.  4.) 

"  By  which  words  of  St.  Ambrose  it  appeareth  plainly,  that  the 
bread  is  called  by  the  name  of  Christ's  body  after  the  consecration  ; 
and  although  it  be  still  bread,  yet  after  consecration  it  is  dignified  by 
the  name  of  the  thing  which  it  representeth  :*  as  at  length  is  de- 

*  It  is  of  importance  not  to  mistake  Cranmer's  use  of  this  expression  which, 
in  other  forms  also,  he  often  employs :  we  may  be  tolerably  certain  that  his 
meaning  is  best  represented  by  the  terms  "no  bare  sign,  no  untrue  figure  of  a 
thing  absent"^  which  occur  in  the  first  part  of  "An  Homily  of  the  worthy  re- 
ceiving and  reverent  esteeming  of  the  Sacrament  of  the  Body  and  Blood  of 
Christ,"  even  if  we  knew  that  this  Homily  of  the  2nd  Book  was  not  written  by 
him  or  at  his  instance,  whereas  the  probability  is  that  he  was  its  author. 

In  confirmation  of  this  it  may  be  remarked — that  Cranmer  could  not  have  held 
lower  views  on  this  point  than  Calvin  whose  doctrine  the  Archbishop  must  have 
well  known  :  it  may  elucidate  this,  and  other  statements  in  this  Letter,  to  quote 
the  following  account  of  Calvin1  s  belief  as  given  by  Bishop  Cosin;  bearing  in 
mind,  however,  how  it  was  affected  by  his  theory  of  Grace  already  referred  to. 

"  Now  because  great  is  the  fame  of  Calvin,  (who  subscribed  the  Augustan 
Confession  and  that  of  the  Switzers,)  let  us  hear  what  he  writ  and  believed  con- 
cerning this  sacred  mystery.  His  words  in  his  Institutions  and  elsewhere  are 
such,  so  conformable  to  the  style  and  mind  of  the  ancient  fathers,  that  no 
Catholic  protestant  would  wish  to  use  any  other.  '  I  understand/  saith  he, 
4  what  is  to  be  understood  by  the  words  of  Christ,  that  He  doth  not  only  offer  us 
the  benefits  of  His  death  and  resurrection,  but  His  very  Body  wherein  He  died 
and  rose  again.  I  assert  that  the  Body  of  Christ  is  really,  (as  the  usual  ex- 
pression is,)  that  is,  truly,  given  to  us  in  the  sacrament,  to  be  the  saving  food  of 
our  souls.'  (Comm.  on  1  Cor.)  Also,  in  another  place :  'Item,  that  word  can- 
not lie,  neither  can  it  mock  us ;  and,  except  one  presumes  to  call  God  a  deceiver, 
he  will  never  dare  to  say  that  the  symbols  are  empty,  and  that  Christ  is  not  in 
them.  Therefore,  if  by  the  breaking  of  the  bread  our  Saviour  doth  represent  the 
participation  of  His  Body,  it  is  not  to  be  doubted  but  that  He  truly  gives  and 
confers  it.  If  it  be  true  that  the  visible  sign  is  given  us  to  seal  the  gift  of  an  in- 
visible thing,  we  must  firmly  believe  that,  receiving  the  signs  of  the  Body,  we 
also  certainly  receive  the  Body  itself.  Setting  aside  all  absurdities,  I  do  will- 
ingly admit  all  those  terms  that  can  most  strongly  express  the  true  and  substan- 
tial communication  of  the  Body  and  Blood  of  Christ  granted  to  the  faithful  with 
the  symbols  of  the  Lord's  Supper;  and  that,  not  as  if  they  received  only  by  the 
force  of  their  imagination,  or  an  act  of  their  minds,  but  really  so  as  to  be  fed 


87 

clared  before  in  the  process  of  transubstantiation,  and  specially  in  the- 
words  of  Theodoretus. 

"  And  as  the  bread  is  a  corporal  meat,  and  corporally  eaten,  so, 
saith  St.  Ambrose  (De  sacramentis,  Lib.  vi.  cap.  1,)  '  is  the  body  of 
Christ  a  spiritual  meat,  and  spiritually  eaten,'  and  that  requireth  no 
Corporal  presence.  "' — Works,  Parker  Society  pp.  177-8. 

Such  was  Abp.  Cranmer's  deliberately  recorded  opinion 
on  this  subject  in  1550:  Bishop  Gardiner  in  his  reply  con- 
troverted the  Primate's  views :  as  however,  we  are  not  now 
seeking  Gardiner's  but  Cranmers  belief,  it  is  not  necessary  to 
quote  the  argument  of  the  former,  especially  as  it  is  substan- 
tially incorporated  with  Cranmer's  rejoinder  in  1551:  this 
"Answer,"  as  also  the  "  Defence,"  undoubtedly  exhibits 
Cranmer's  views  at  the  very  time  he  was  preparing  the  Prayer 
Book  of  1552;  for  in  a  Letter  to  the  Secretary  of  State, 
dated  Sep.  29,  1551,  he  asks  the  King's  Licence  "  for  the 
printing  and  selling  "  of  the  Book  which  contained  both. 
From  the  "  Answer  "  I  cite  the  following  passages  : — 

"  It  is  not  I  that  wrestle  with  St.  Ambrose,  but  you,  who  take 
great  pain  to  wrest  his  words  clean  contrary  to  his  intent  and  mean- 
ing. But  where  you  ask  this  question,  What  can  be  more  plain  than 
these  words  of  St.  Ambrose,  *  It  is  bread  before  consecration,  and 
after,  it  is  Christ's  body?'  these  words  of  St.  Ambrose  be  not  fully 
so  plain  as  you  pretend,  but  clean  contrary.  For  what  can  be  spoken 
either  more  unplain  or  untrue,  than  to  say  of  bread  after  consecra- 
tion, that  it  is  the  body  of  Christ,  unless  the  same  be  understanded  in, 

thereby  unto  eternal  life.'  (Instit.  book  iv.  cb.  17.)  Again :  '  "We  must  therefore 
confess  that  the  inward  substance  of  the  Sacrament  is  joined  with  the  visible 
sign ;  so  that,  as  the  bread  is  put  into  our  hand,  the  Body  of  Christ  is  also  given 
to  us.  This  certainly,  if  there  were  nothing  else,  should  abundantly  satisfy  us 
that  we  understand  that  Christ  in  His  Holy  Supper  gives  us  the  true  and  proper 
substance  of  His  Body  and  Blood ;  that,  it  being  wholly  ours,  we  may  be  made 
partakers  of  all  His  benefits  and  graces.'  (Treat,  of  the  Lord's  Supper.)  Again  : 
*  The  Son  of  God  offers  daily  to  us  in  the  Holy  Sacrament  the  same  Body  which 
He  once  offered  in  sacrifice  to  His  Father,  that  it  may  be  our  spiritual  food.'  In 
these  he  asserts,  as  clearly  as  any  one  can,  the  true,  real,  and  substantial  pre- 
sence and  communication  of  the  Body  of  Christ ;  but  how,  he  undertakes  not  to 
determine.  'If  any  one,'  saith  he,  (Instit.,  book  iv.  ch.  17,  num.  32,)  '  ask  me 
concerning  the  manner,  I  will  not  be  ashamed  to  confess  that  it  is  a  secret  too 
high  for  my  reason  to  comprehend,  or  my  tongue  to  express ;  or,  to  speak  more 
properly,  I  rather  feel  than  understand  it :  therefore,  without  disputing,  I  em- 
brace the  truth  of  God,  and  confidently  repose  on  it.  He  declares  that  His  flesh 
is  the  food,  and  His  Blood  the  drink  of  my  soul ;  and  my  soul  I  offer  to  Him  to 
be  fed  by  such  nourishment.  He  bids  me  take,  eat,  and  drink,  His  Body  and 
Blood,  which  in  His  Holy  Supper  He  offers  me  under  the  symbols  of  bread  and 
wine  :  I  make  no  scruple,  but  He  doth  reach  them  to  me,  and  I  receive  them.' 
All  these  are  Calvin's  own  words." — Cosin's  History  of  Transubstantiation,  Ang, 
Cath.  Lib,  p.  167. 


a  figurative  speech  ?     For  although  Christ's  body,   as  you  say,  be 

there  after  consecration,  yet  the  bread  is  not  His  body,  nor  His 

body  is  not  made  of  it,  by  your  confession.  And  therefore  the 
saying  of  St.  Ambrose,  that  it  is  Christ's  body,  cannot  be  true  in 
plain  speech.  And  therefore  St.  Ambrose  in  the  same  place,  where 
he  calleth  it  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ,  he  saith,  it  is  a  figure  of 
His  body  and  blood.  For  these  be  his  words  :  Quod  est  figura 
corporis  et  sanguinis  Domini  nostri  Jesu  Christi. — p.  179. 

"  And  as  for  the  word  *  consecration  '  I  have  declared  the  signifi- 
cation thereof  according  to  the  mind  of  the  old  authors,  as  I  will 
justify. 

"  And  for  the  writing  of  Melancthon  to  CEcolampadius,  you 
remain  still  in  your  old  error,  taking  Myconius  for  CEcolampadius. 
And  yet  the  change  of  bread  and  wine  in  this  Sacrament,  which 
Melancthon  speaketh  of,  is  a  sacramental  change,  as  the  nature  of 
a  sacrament  requireth,  signifying  how  wonderfully  Almighty  God 
by  his  omnipotency  worketh  in  us  his  lively  members,  and  not  in  the 
dead  creatures  of  bread  and  wine. 

"  And  the  change  is  in  the  use,  and  not  in  the  elements  kept  and 
reserved,  wherein  is  not  the  perfection  of  a  sacrament.  Therefore, 
as  water  in  the  font  or  vessel  hath  not  the  reason  and  nature  of  a 
sacrament,  but  when  it  is  put  to  the  use  of  christening,  and  then 
it  is  changed  into  the  proper  nature  and  kind  of  a  sacrament, 
to  signify  the  wonderful  change  which  Almighty  God  by  his 
omnipotency  worketh  really  in  them  that  be  baptized  therewith  ; 
such  is  the  change  of  the  bread  and  wine  in  the  Lord's  supper. 
And  therefore,  the  bread  is  called  Christ's  Body  after  consecration, 
as  St.  Ambrose  saith,  and  yet  it  is  not  so  really  but  sacramentally. 
For  it  is  neither  Christ's  mystical  body,  (for  that  is  the  congrega- 
tion of  the  faithful  dispersed  abroad  in  the  world,)  nor  His  natural 
body,  (for  that  is  in  Heaven,)  but  it  is  the  sacrament  both  of  His  true 
natural  body,  and  also  of  His  mystical  body,  and  for  that  considera- 
tion hath  the  name  of  His  body,  as  a  sacrament  or  sign  may  bear  the 
name  of  the  very  thing  that  is  signified  and  represented  thereby. — 
p.  180. 

"  And  I  express  St.  Cyprian's  mind  truly,  and  not  a  whit  discrepant 
from  my  doctrine  here,  when  I  say,  that  the  Divinity  may  be  Said 

to  be  poured,  or  put  sacramentally  into  the  bread;  as  the  Spirit 

of  God  is  said  to  be  in  the  water  of  Baptism,  when  it  is  truly  minis- 
tered, or  in  His  word  when  it  is  sincerely  preached,  with  the  Holy 
Spirit  working  mightily  in  the  hearts  of  the  hearers.  And  yet  the 
water  in  itself  is  but  a  visible  element,  nor  the  preacher's  word  of 
itself  is  but  a  sound  in  the  air,  which  as  soon  as  it  is  heard,  vanisheth 
away,  and  hath  in  itself  no  holiness  at  all,  although  for  the  use  and 
ministry  thereof  it  may  be  called  holy.  And  so  likewise  may  be  said 
of  the  sacraments,  which,  as  St.  Augustine  saith,  *  be  as  it  were 
God's  visible  word.' — p.  181. 


89 

"...  the  bread  after  consecration  is  not  called  Christ's  body, 
because  it  is  so  in  deed ;  for  then  it  were  no  figurative  speech,  as  all 
the  old  authors  say  it  is."— p.  182. 

Such,  then,  were  Cranmer's  views  of  Consecration  at  the 
date  of  the  publication  of  Edward's  2nd  Book  ;  for,  though 
published  apparently  some  months  before  that  Book,  it  is 
certain  that  he  did  not  subsequently  part  with  them  for  any 
lower  standard:  yet,  whether  the  Archbishop's  statements 
fully  realized  the  mind  of  Catholic  Antiquity  or  not,  it  will 
hardly  be  contended  that  the  man  who  could  write  thus  made 
light  of  that  part  of  the  Eucharistic  Ritual,  much  less  dis- 
believed or  disavowed  the  Church's  Doctrine  concerning  it.* 

*  Hence,  as  also  for  reasons  mentioned  at  p.  35,  I  cannot  accept  the  interpre- 
tation, there  referred  to,  of  the  Rubric  in  the  Prayer  Book  of  1552  "  if  any  of  the 
bread  and  wine  remain,  the  Curate  shall  have  it  to  his  own  use."  It  is  to  be  re- 
gretted that  Mr.  Gheyne  (Six  Sermons  p.  46,  Note),  in  common  indeed  with  others, 
should  have  (as  I  think)  so  mistaken,  what  I  have  no  doubt  is  its  true  meaning,  as  to 
censure  "  Cranmer  and  his  associates"  in  strong  language  for  having  thus  "left" 
it.  Even  Bucer,  in  his  Censures  on  the  Book  of  1549,  while  objecting  to  the 
oblation  of  the  Elements  "as  implying  a  superstitious  notion  of  the  effect  of 
Consecration :  .  .  .  allows  .  .  .  that  at  a  very  early  period  care  was  taken  to 
avoid  profanation  of  the  remains  of  the  consecrated  Elements."  (Procter  p.  41.) 
And  when  we  remember  that  neither  he  nor  P.  Martyr  seem  to  have  expected 
that  their  opinions  would  determine  the  changes  (see  their  Letters  quoted  in 
Procter  pp.  43  and  44),  it  is  very  unlikely  that  the  Rubric  in  question  could  have 
been  meant  in  the  least  to  alter  what  no  doubt  was  the  then  practice.  It  cannot 
be  reasonably  doubted,  I  think,  that,  as  no  Rubric  existed  in  the  1st  Book  de- 
termining what  was  to  be  done  with  the  unconsumed  Sacrament  when  not  re- 
served for  the  sick,  so  the  Revisers  of  that  Book  thought  it  unnecessary  to  add  a 
Rubric  in  the  2nd  Book  to  determine  a  point  which  usual  practice  must  have 
settled  for  a  body  of  Clergy  who,  if  not  forbidden,  would  naturally  do  as  they  had 
done  under  the  old  Ritual.  They  were  not  likely,  for  the  most  part,  to  be  irre- 
verent on  this  matter. 

I  have  already  (Letter  p.  35)  expressed  an  opinion  that  reservation  for  the 
sick  probably  continued  to  be  practised  under  the  Book  of  1552:  in  support  of 
that  view  it  may  be  as  well  to  add  here  that  (apart  from  the  likelihood  of  the 
custom  being  continued  by  the  Clergy  of  that  day)  the  Office  fer  the  Communion 
of  the  Sick  does  not  for  bid  it,  though  the  Rubric  of  the  1st  Book,  directing  it,  was 
omitted.  But  in  Elizabeth's  Beok  the  Office  was  precisely  that  of  Edward's  2nd 
Book,  and  yet  in  her  authorized  Latin  version  the  Rubric  is  retained,  directing 
reservation  at  the  public  Celebration  when  notice  had  been  given  that  a  sick 
person  desired  Communion. 

It  would  be  no  answer,  I  think,  to  this  argument  to  say — that  the  Latin  Book 
seems  to  have  been  designed  for  the  use  of  the  Universities :  for  the  question  at 
once  arises— on  what  principle  could  reservation  be  accounted  right  in  a  College 
and  wrong  in  a  Parish  ?  Besides,  it  would  have  to  be  shown  that  the  sacerdos 
who,  in  the  3rd  Rubric,  is  directed  to  reserve  is  not  the  parochus  to  whom  in  the 
2nd  Rubric  the  notice  is  ordered  to  be  sent. 

It  is  worth  noticing,  too,  that  P.  Martyr  in  his  Strictures  on  the  Book  of  1549 
expresses  his  surprise  that  Bucer  had  not  objected  to  Reservation  for  the  sick. 

In  dealing  with  points  of  this  kind  we  cannot  too  carefully  bear  in  mind  what 
were  likely  to  have  been  the  habits  of  Clergy  accustomed  to  the  Old  Offices :  by 

N 


90 

Though,  however,  the  Archbishop  intended  to  maintain  (as 
I  believe)  the  Catholic  Doctrine  on  Consecration;  and,  as 
his  Letter  to  the  Council  proves,  upheld  the  practice  of  kneel- 
ing at  the  Sacrament ;  we  may  well  conclude  that,  under  the 
circumstances  of  that  particular  time,  he  would  readily  con- 
sent to  (perhaps  suggested)  an  explanation  of  the  latter  act 
such  as  that  contained  in  the  Declaration.  For,  considering 
his  anxiety  as  to  what  the  Roman  party  had  recently  been 
doing  at  Trent,  it  was  but  natural  that  he  should  desire  not  to 
have  the  Church  of  England  charged  with  upholding  the 
Roman  doctrine  while  insisting  upon  this  act  of  external 
reverence. 

It  was  barely  seven  months  before,  viz.  March  20th,  1552, 
that  he  had  written  to  Bullinger,  Calvin,  and  Melaricthon 
expressing  his  concern  at  the  proceedings  of  the  Council  of 
Trent :  addressing  Calvin  he  thus  writes  : 

"  .  .  .  .  Our  adversaries  are  now  holding  their  councils  at 
Trent  for  the  establishment  of  their  errors  ;  and  shall  we  neglect  to 
call  together  a  godly  synod,  for  the  refutation  of  error,  and  for  re- 
storing and  propagating  the  truth  ?  They  are,  as  I  am  informed, 
making  decrees  respecting  the  worship  of  the  host  [w£pt  r^f 
apToXarpsia?] :  wherefore  we  ought  to  leave  no  stone  unturned,  not 
only  that  we  may  guard  others  against  this  idolatry,  but  also  that  we 
may  ourselves  come  to  an  agreement  upon  the  doctrine  of  this  sacra- 
ment. It  cannot  escape  your  prudence,  how  exceedingly  the  Church 
of  God  has  been  injured  by  dissensions  and  varieties  of  opinion  re- 
specting this  sacrament  of  unity ;  and  though  they  are  now  in  some 
measure  removed,  yet  I  could  wish  for  an  agreement  in  this  doctrine, 
not  only  as  regards  the  subject  itself,  but  also  with  respect  to  the 
words  and  forms  of  expression  .  .  .  ." — Original  Letters, 
Parker  Society  Vol.  1 .  No.  xiv.  p.  24,  and  Lat,  Orig.  in  Cranmer's 
Remains.  Pt.  1,  p.  431. 

To  this  Letter  Calvin  replied  from  Geneva  about  a  month 
afterwards,  viz.  in  April  1552  ;  he  observes: — 

"...  I  wish  it  could  be  effected,  that  grave  and  learned 
men  from  the  principal  churches  might  meet  together  at  a  place 
appointed,  and,  after  diligent  consideration  of  each  article  of  faith, 
hand  down  to  posterity  a  definite  form  of  doctrine  according  to  their 
united  opinion.  But  this  also  is  to  be  reckoned  among  the  greatest 

doing  this  we  shall  probably  save  ourselves  from  the  common  but,  I  think,  most 
doubtful  and  unhistorical  conclusion  -  tbat  whatever  was  not  ordered  in  Edward's 
2nd  Book  ceased  to  be  practised.  Rubrical  omissions  must  not  be  confused  with 
Rubrical  prohibitions. 


91 

evils  of  our  time,  that  the  churches  are  so  estranged  from  each  othef, 
that  scarcely  the  common  intercourse  of  society  has  place  among 
them  ;  much  less  that  holy  communion  of  the  members  of  Christ, 
which  all  persons  profess  with  their  life,  though  few  sincerely  honour 
it  in  their  practice  .  .  .  ." — Orig.  Letters.  Vol.  2,  No.  cccxxxvii. 
p.  713. 

With  so  little  hope,  then,  of  attaining  an  agreement  with 
other  Churches  on  the  Eucharistic  question,  Cranmer  no 
doubt  was  the  more  desirous  of  securing  concord  in  England ; 
it  is  likely,  therefore,  that  we  see  one  fruit  of  this  wish  in  the 
xxixth  Article  of  the  Synod  of  this  very  year  (1552)  already 
noticed  in  the  Letter  p.  32 ;  and  nothing  can  be  more  pro- 
bable than  that  the  Archbishop  had  induced  the  Convocation 
to  pass  the  2nd  paragraph  (denying  Transubstantiation)  and 
the  3rd  paragraph  (rejecting  "the  reall  and  bodelie  presence") 
— that  very  paragraph  upon  which,  as  I  argued  (Letter  p.  36) 
the  Declaration  was  obviously  framed — on  account  of  what  he 
understood  the  Council  of  Trent  to  have  been  enacting; 
though  it  is  probable  he  did  not  know  the  precise  language  of 
the  Decree  and  Canon  which  had  been  passed  in  its  13th 
Session,  October  llth,  1551. 

The  Decree,  which  immediately  follows  that  "  On  Tran- 
substantiation" and  is  made  to  depend  upon  it,  runs  thus : — 

"  Wherefore,  there  is  no  room  left  for  doubt,  that  all  the  faithful 
of  Christ  may,  according  to  the  custom  ever  received  in  the  Catholic 
Church,  render  in  veneration  the  worship  of  latria,  which  is  due  to 
the  true  God,  to  this  most  holy  sacrament.  For  not  therefore  is  it 
the  less  to  be  adored  on  this  account,  that  it  was  instituted  by  Christ, 
the  Lord,  in  order  to  be  received  :  for  we  believe  that  same  God  to 
be  present  therein,  of  whom  the  eternal  Father,  when  introducing 
Him  into  the  world,  says  ;  And  let  all  the  angels  of  God  adore  Him; 
whom  the  Magi  falling  down,  adored  ;  who,  in  fine,  as  the  Scripture 
testifies,  was  adored  by  the  Apostles  in  Galilee." — Canons  and  De- 
crees of  the  Council  of  Trent  p.  79,  Waterworth's  Translation. 

It  is  not  improbable  that  the  Archbishop  may  have  been  in- 
formed of  the  substance  of  this  Decree:  if  so,  he  would  no 
doubt  consider  that  the  earlier  part  of  it  (especially  as  based 
upon  the  Decree  on  Transubstantiation)  tended  to  uphold  the 
popular  view  of  a  carnal  Presence  ;  and  thus  he  would  be  the 
more  eager  to  guard  the  Eucharistic  Doctrine  in  those  Articles 


92 

which  were  then  passing.  The  Canon,  indeed,  which  was 
founded  upon  this  Decree  is  not,  in  its  first  clause,  open  to 
this  objection  :  for  it  only  declares : —  * 

"  If  any  one  saith,  that,  in  the  holy  sacrament  of  the  Eucharist, 
Christ,  the  only-begotten  Son  of  God,  is  not  to  be  adored  with  the 
worship,  even  external  of  latria ;  ....  let  him  be  anathema." 

But  then,  even  if  Cranmer  had  known  of  this  Canon,  he 
might  naturally  fear  that  the  way  in  which  it  immediately 
proceeds  to  defend  the  popular  practices  of  adoration  would 
be  likely  to  obscure  this  statement  and  foster  the  prevalent 
grosser  belief :  for  it  runs  on,  after  the  word  "  latria,"  thus  : — 

"  and  is,  consequently,  neither  to  be  venerated  with  a  special 
festive  solemnity,  nor  to  be  solemnly  borne  about  in  processions, 
according  to  the  laudable  and  universal  rite  and  custom  of  holy 
church;  or,  is  not  to  be  proposed  publicly  to  the  people  to  be 
adored,  and  that  the  adorers  thereof  are  idolaters;  let  him  be 
anathema."— Canon  vi.  Ibid.  p.  83. 

In  the  Archbishop's  judgment  the  practices  thus  main- 
tained under  the  Council's  anathema,  and  by  it  tied  to  the 
Doctrine  of  Transubstantiation,  had  been  so  connected  in  the 
minds  of  the  people  with  the  physical  Presence,  as  to  be 
neither  safe  nor  profitable  ;  yet,  in  marked  contrast  with  the 
vehemence  of  the  Council,  all  that  he  and  his  Synod,  speaking 
in  the  name  of  the  Church  of  England,  say,  is — 

"  The  Sacramente  of  the  Lordes  Supper  was  not  commaunded  by 
Christes  ordinaunce  to  be  kepte,  carried  about,  lifted  up,  nor 
worshipped." — Art.  xxix  of  1552. 

He  might  well,  therefore,  think  it  all  the  more  important 
to  explain  by  way  of  Declaration  that  kneeling  as  ordered  by 
the  Church  of  England  did  not  imply  any  belief  in  Transub- 
stantiation ;  especially  as  he  knew  that  they  who  opposed  the 
required  practice  would,  probably,  be  only  too  ready  to  accuse 
her  of  maintaining,  by  a  Ceremonial  act  prescribed  to  the 
people,  what  they  would  be  compelled  to  admit  she  had  dis- 
avowed in  a  Formulary  to  be  subscribed  by  the  Clergy. 

Thus  far  I  have  argued  Cranmer's  probable  meaning,  upon 
the  supposition  that  the  objections  to  the  Rubric  enforcing 
Kneeling  came  from  the  Zwinglian  party,  and  were  based 
upon  purely  Doctrinal  grounds :  but,  though  we  have  no 


positive  information  on  the  subject,  we  are  not  left  wholly  to 
conjecture  the  source  whence  they  proceeded :  there  is  much 
reason  for  thinking  that  JOHN  KNOX  was  really  the  objector 
whom  the  Archbishop  had  especially  to  withstand;  yet 
doubtless  he  was  the  mouthpiece  of  a  party  and,  too,  we 
may  be  sure  he  would  be  no  unwelcome  advocate  for  those 
whom  I  have  already  noticed,  notwithstanding  their  Doctrinal 
differences. 

Knox  (who  had  been  ordained  Priest  about  1530)  was 
appointed  one  of  the  Six  Royal  Chaplains  in  December  1551 : 
in  this  character  he  had,  in  October  1552,  to  revise  the 
Articles  then  in  preparation,  as  we  learn  from  Strype,  who, 
quoting  the  Council  Book,  says  : — 

"  ...  .1  find  that '  October  2,  a  letter  was  directed  to  Mr.  Harley, 
Bill,  Horn,  Grindal,  Perne,  and  Knox,  to  consider  certain  Articles 
(which  must  be  these  Articles  of  Religion),  exhibited  to  the  King's 
majesty,  to  be  subscribed  by  all  such  as  shall  be  admitted  to  be 
preachers  or  ministers  in  any  part  of  the  realm  ;  and  to  make 
report  of  their  opinions  touching  the  same.' " — Life  of  Crammer, 
Bk.  ii.  c.  28. 

And  in  a  Letter  from  JOHN  UTENHOVIUS  to  HENRY 
BULLINGER,  dated  "  London,  Oct.  12,  1552,"  there  occurs 
the  following  passage : — 

"  Some  disputes  have  arisen  within  these  few  days  among  the 
bishops,  in  consequence  of  a  sermon  of  a  pious  preacher,  chaplain  to 
the  duke  of  Northumberland,  preached  by  him, before  the  King  and 
Council,  in  which  he  inveighed  with  great  freedom  against  kneeling 
at  the  Lord's  supper,  which  is  still  retained  here  in  England.  This 
good  man,  however,  a  Scotsman  by  nation,  has  so  wrought  upon  the 
minds  of  many  persons,  that  we  may  hope  some  good  to  the  Church 
will  at  length  arise  from  it ;  which  I  earnestly  implore  the  Lord  to 
grant.'* — Orig.  Letters,  Parker  Society,  p.  591. 


Now,  though  Knox  is  not  here  mentioned  by  name,  there 
can  be  little  doubt  that  the  passage  refers  to  him;  for  (1) 
First,  his  office  of  Royal  Chaplain  would  account  for  his 
preaching  before  this  congregation:  (2)  Next,  the  writer 
(who  does  not  seem  to  have  known  much  of  the  preacher) 
may,  likely  enough,  have  been  ignorant  of  his  recent  pro- 
motion:  (3)  Thirdly,  though  there  seems  no  more  reliable 


record  of  his  having  been  Chaplain  *  to  the  Duke,  it  may  he 
inferred  that  he  had  been,  both  from  his  appointment  in  1549 
"  to  a  preachership  at  Berwick-on-Tweed  "  by  "  the  English 
Privy  Council,"  (of  which  his  Grace  was  then  a  most  active 
member,)  and  also  from  the  circumstance  of  his  preaching  "  at 
Newcastle,  April  4,  1550,  before  the  Council  of  the  North 
for  public  affairs"  :f  (4)  Fourthly,  Northumberland's  interest 
in  Knox,  probably  because  he  had  been  his  Chaplain,  is  shewn 
by  his  Letter  to  Cecil  about  the  same  time,  (Oct.  28,  1552,) 
in  which  he  writes  : — 

"  I  would  to  God  it  might  please  the  King's  Majesty  to  appoint 
Mr.  Knocks  to  the  office  of  Rochester  bishopric ;  which,  for  three 
purposes,  would  do  very  well.  The  first,  he  would  not  only  be  a 
whetstone,  to  quicken  and  sharp  the  Archbishop  of  Canterbury, 
whereof  he  hath  need  ;  but  also  he  would  be  a  great  confounder  of 

the  Anabaptists  lately  sprung  up  in  Kent " — Orig.  St.  P.  Off. 

Domestic,  in  Tytler's  Reigns  of  Edw.  vi.  &c.  ii.  p.  142. 

That  Knox  did  preach  before  Edward  the  Sixth  is  certain 
from  the  fact  that  he  himself  mentions  it  in  his  <f  Admonition 
to  the  professors  of  God's  truth  in  England",  published  in 
1554 :  he  there  relates,  too,  what  he  had  said  in  his  Sermon, 
as  to  the  character  of  some  of  the  King's  councillors,  which, 
supported  as  it  is  by  other  historical  testimony,  may  fairly 
lead  us  to  infer — that  the  sympathies  of  leading  members  of 
the  Council  were  not  so  entirely  with  the  Reforming  move- 
ment as  is  commonly  supposed,  though  other  motives  appa- 
rently induced  them  to  forward  it,  for  Northumberland 
himself  died  professing  to  be  a  Romanist.  Knox  repeats 
his  conviction  of  the  truth  of  his  allegations  in  these  words : — 

"I  affirme,  that  under  that  innocent  Kinge  pestilent  Papistes 
had  greatest  authoritie.  Oh !  who  was  judged  to  be  the  soule 
and  lyfe  to  the  counsel  in  every  matter  of  weiaghty  importance  ? 
Who  but  Sobna.  Who  could  best  dispatche  busynesses,  that  the 

*  That  lie  was  not  Chaplain  to  Northumberland  on  the  llth  Dec.  1552  may 
be  gathered  from  tbe  fact,  that  on  tbat  day  the  Duke  recommended  his  Chaplain 
"  for  the  King's  presentation  to  the  Vicarage  of  Kidderminster,  which  Mr.  Harley, 
now  Bishop  of  Hereford,  had."  (Letter  to  Cecil.  Orig.  St.  P.  Office.  Domestic 
Edw.  vi.  Vol.  xv.  No.  70.)  At  this  time  the  serious  dispute  (mentioned  below, 
p.  95,)  had  occurred  between  Northumberland  and  Knox. 

f  Hardwicke's  Reformation,  p.  148. 


95 

rest  of  the  Counsel  might  hauke  &  hunt,  and  take  their  pleasure  ? 
None  lyke  unto  Sobna.     Who  was  most  frantic  and  ready  to  destroy 

Somerset  and  set  up  Northumberland  ?     Was  it  not  Sobna  ? 

the  Treasurer.'  " 

By  Sobna,  i  e.  Shebna,  he  '*  refers  to  Sir  William  Paulet,  created 
in  1551  Marquess  of  Winchester,  who  was  successively  Comptroller, 
Secretary,  and  Lord  Treasurer  to  Edward  the  Sixth,  and  was  con- 
tinued in  that  office  by  Queen  Mary." — Laing's  Knox,  vol.  3, 
p,  283. 

It  may  be  thought,  perhaps,  that  the  way  in  which  Knox 
here  speaks  of  Northumberland  is  adverse  to  the  supposition 
of  the  latter  being  his  patron;  but  the  fact  is,  that  their 
regard  for  each  other  (whether  ever  very  sincere  or  not)  had 
undergone  a  material  change.  Elsewhere  in  the  "  Admoni- 
tion" Knox  calls  the  Duke  "  that  wretched  (alas)  and  miserable 
Northumberlande  " ;  and,  again,  he  asks  "  who,  I  pray  you, 
ruled  the  roste  in  the  courte  all  this  time,  by  stoute  corage 
and  proudness  of  stomak,  but  Northumberland  ?"  (Laing, 
pp.  277  &  280.)  It  was  barely  seven  weeks  after  the  Duke 
had  recommended  Knox  for  the  Bishopric  of  Rochester  that 
he  wrote  thus  to  the  Secretary  Cecil : 

"  Master  Knox's  being  here  to  speak  with  me,  saying  that  he  was 
so  willed  by  you,  I  do  return  him  again,  because  I  love  not  to  have 
to  do  with  men  which  be  neither  grateful  nor  pleasable.  I  assure 
you  I  mind  to  have  no  more  to  do  with  him  but  to  wish  him  well, 
neither  also  with  the  Dean  of  Durham,  because,  under  the  colour  of 
a  false  conscience,  he  can  prettily  malign  and  judge  of  others  against 
good  charity  upon  a  froward  judgment.  And  this  manner  you  might 
see  in  his  letter,  that  he  cannot  tell  whether  I  be  a  dissembler  in  religion 
or  not :  but  I  have  for  twenty  years  stand  [stood]  to  one  kind  of 
religion,  in  the  same  which  I  do  now  profess  ;  and  have,  I  thank 
the  Lord,  past  no  small  dangers  for  it." — Orig.  St.  P.  Off.  7th  Dec. 
1552,  in  TytMs  Edw.  vi.  vol.  ii.  p.  148. 

The  breach  thus  opened  was  made  wider  by  Knox's 
political  preaching  at  Newcastle  in  the  following  year,  in 
which  he  lamented  the  fall  of  Somerset,  and  thus  led  North- 
umberland to  complain  of  him,  in  February,  to  the  Council ; 
nor  was  it  ever  healed. 

Another  indication  that  Knox  it  was  who  had  mainly  pro- 
voked the  Archbishop's  Letter,  occurs  in  one  line  of  a 
"Memoranda  of  matters  to  be  brought  before  the  Council,"  dated 


96 

Oct.  20,  1552,    (St.  P.  Office.     Domestic,  Edw.  vi.  Vol.  xv. 
No.  20,)  which  runs  thus  : — 

"  Mr.  Knocks— b.  of  Oaf*-  |  ye  book  in  y«  [or  ye]  B.  of  Durh" 

This  note  is  just  13  days  after  the  Primate's  Letter 
(p.  77),  and  7  days  before  the  Letter  to  the  Lord  Chancellor 
(p.  35)  to  add  the  Declaration  :  the  juxta-position  of  Knox 
and  Cranmer  and  the  mention  of  the  book,  though  separated 
from  their  names,  I  cannot  but  conjecture  to  be  notes  touching 
this  dispute  on  Kneeling  which  was  settled  at  the  Council  of 
Oct.  27th  by  ordering  the  Declaration.  The  remaining  part 
of  the  Memorandum  probably  refers  to  the  subject  of 
appointing  a  Bishop  of  Durham,  which  Northumberland  was 
then  urging  upon  the  Council :  but  whether  "  ye  book  "  re- 
lates to  some  Document  connected  with  the  See  of  Durham, 
or  refers^  as  I  think,  to  the  Prayer  Book  then  under  dis- 
cussion, the  former  part  of  the  Note  looks  very  much  indeed 
like  an  allusion  to  Knox's  alleged  complaint  of  the  Rubric 
on  Kneeling  and  the  Archbishop's  defence  of  it. 

Further,  early  in  the  next  year,  under  date  Feb.  2,  1552-3, 
the  Council  Book  contains  the-  following  entry  : — 

"At  Westminster,  the  seconde  of  Fibruary  1552  A  lettre  to  the 
Archbusshop  of  Caunterbury  in  favour  of  Mr.  Knokes,  to  be  pre- 
sented to  the  Vicaredge  or  Personage  of  Allhallows,  in  Bredestrete, 
in  his  Lordship's  disposition,  by  the  preferment  of  Thomas  Sampson 
to  the  Deanry  of  Chichester." 

This  occurrence,  and  certain  consequent  proceedings  of  the 
Council  against  Knox,  related  in  the  following  passage,  serve 
still  more  to  identify  the  Northern  Reformer  with  the  dispute 
as  to  this  Rubric  on  Kneeling.  Mr.  Laing  remarks : — 

"  Knox's  refusal  of  this  living  was  one  of  the  grounds  upon  which 
he  was  summoned  to  appear  before  the  Privy  Council,  as  we  learn 
from  a  letter  written  by  him  in  April  1553.  The  letter  itself  has 
not  been  discovered ;  but  Calderwood  has  preserved  what  seems  to 
be  a  full  abstract  of  it,  in  his  larger  Manuscript  History,  in  connec- 
tion with  some  extracts  from  his  '  Admonition,'  which  was  written 
and  published  the  following  year . 

"  'In  a  letter,  dated  the  14th  of  April  1553,  and  written  with  his 
own  hand,  I  find  (says  Calderwood)  that  he  was  called  before  the 
Council  of  England  for  kneeling,  who  demanded  of  him  these 


97 

questions.  First,  Why  he  refused  the  benefice  provided  for  him. 
Secondly,  Whether  he  thought  that  no  Christian  might  serve  in  the 
Ecclesiastical  ministration  according  to  the  rites  and  lawes  of  the 
realme  of  England?  Thirdly,  If  kneeling  at  the  Lord's  table  was 
not  indifferent  ? 

"'  ..  ..To  the  third  he  answered,  That  Christ's  action  in  itself 
was  most  perfect,  and  Christ's  action  was  done  without  kneeling ; 
that  kneeling  was  man's  addition  or  imagination ;  that  it  was  most 
sure  to  follow  the  example  of  Christ,  whose  action  was  done  sitting 
and  not  kneeling.' 

"  '  In  this  last  question  there  was  great  contention  betwixt  the 
whole  table  of  the  Lords  and  him.  There  were  present  there  the 
Bishops  of  Canterbury  and  Ely,  my  Lord  Treasurer,  the  Marquis 
of  Northampton,  the  Earl  of  Bedford,  the  Earl  of  Shrewsbury, 
Master  Comptroller,  my  Lord  Chamberlain,  both  the  Secretaries, 
and  other  inferior  Lords.  After  long  reasoning,  it  was  said  to  him, 
that  he  was  not  called  of  any  evil  mind  *  ;  they  were  sorry  to  know 
him  of  a  contrary  mind  to  the  common  Order.  He  answered,  that 
he  was  more  sorry  that  a  common  Order  should  be  contrary  to 
Christ's  institution.  With  some  gentle  speeches  he  was  dismissed, 
and  willed  to  advise  with  himself  if  lie  would  communicate  after  that 
Order." — Knoxs  Works.  Vol.  in.  p.  83.  Edinburgh,  1854. 

A  careful  examination  of  the  Council  Book,-)-  though  it 
enabled  me  to  verify  the  extracts  from  Burnet  and  Strype  at 
p.  35,  has  failed  to  furnish  any  additional  particulars  illus- 
trative of  the  course  pursued  by  the  Council  subsequently  to 
the  Archbishop's  Letter.  The  Book  contains,  in  fact,  only 
short  minutes  of  the  Council's  Meetings,  any  transcripts  of 
Documents  connected  with  the  business  transacted  were  kept 
elsewhere,  and  what  remain  are  now  preserved  in  the  State 
Paper  Office  and  other  repositories  of  the  Public  Records. 
Perhaps  the  Council's  Letter  to  the  Lord  Chancellor,  Thos. 
Goodrick  Bishop  of  Ely,  (referred  to  at  p.  35,)  may  have  con- 
tained some  reason  for  the  insertion  of  the  Declaration  on 
Kneeling,  but  this  Document  does  not  seem  to  exist.' 

From  the  little  we  know  of  Goodrick  himself,  there  is  every 
reason  to  conclude  that  he  was  not  likely  to  have  been  a  party 

*  Certainly  this  is  confirmed  by  the  fact  recorded  (barely  two  months  later)  in 
the  Council  Book,  under  date  June  2nd,  1553,  that  the  Council,  including  the 
Abp.  of  Canterbury,  wrote  a  Letter  in  favour  of  Knox  to  several  gentlemen  in 
Buckinghamshire.  He  quotes  in  his  "Admonition,"  what  he  had  preached  at 
"  Hammershame,"  i.e.  Amersham,  in  that  county. 

f  For  the  facility  afforded  me  in  doing  this,  I  have  to  acknowledge  the  polite 
attention  of  Henry  Reeve,  Esq.,  of  the  Privy  Council  Office. 

O 


98 

to  any  statement  committing  the  Church  of  England  to  hete- 
rodox teaching  on  the  subject  of  the  Real  Presence  ;  there 
seems  nothing  to  shew  that  he  was  at  all  a  time-serving  Pre- 
late in  the  way  of,  what  I  may  call,  Continental  Protestantism : 
rather  his  tendencies,  as  alleged  in  the  following  Biographical 
notice  of  him,  appear  to  have  been  in  the  opposite  direction  : — 

"  he  had  a  hand  in  compiling the  Institution  of  a  Christian 

man in  1551,  he  was  made  Lord  Chancellor  of  England,  in 

the  room  of  Lord  Rich,  which  office  he  discharged  with  singular  re- 
putation of  integrity,  though  in  matters  of  Religion  he  was  suspected 
by  some,  of  too  much  disposition  to  temporize  in  favour  of  popery, 
upon  the  accession  of  Queen  Mary  ;  and  Dodd,  though  somewhat 
faintly,  claims  him  as  a  popish  bishop.  It  is  certain  he  was  suffered 
to  retain  his  bishopric  to  'his  death,  although  the  seals  were  taken 
from  him." — Chalmers'  Biog.  Diet.  Vol.  xvi.  p.  100. 

Burnet's  opinion  coincides  with  this,  though  (as  is  too 
often  the  case  with  that  Prelate  who  yet  was  not  quite  the 
person  to  be  thus  uncharitable)  he  indulges  in  somewhat 
severe  remarks  upon  the  Chancellor :  he  says,  with  regard  to 
his  promotion,  that 

"  ....  as  Goodrick  was  raised  by  the  Popish  interest  in  opposition 
to  the  Duke  of  Somerset,  and  to  Cranmer,  that  was  his  firm  friend  ; 
so  it  appeared  in  the  beginning  of  Queen  Maries  Reign,  that  he  was 
ready  to  turn  with  every  tide  :  and  that  whether  he  joyned  in  the 
Reformation  only  in  compliance  to  the  time,  or  was  perswaded  in  his 
mind  concerning  it ;  yet  he  had  not  that  sense  of  it  that  became  a 
Bishop,  and  was  one  of  those  who  resolved  to  make  as  much  advan- 
tage by  it  as  he  could,  but  would  suffer  nothing  for  it." — Hist.  Ref. 
bk.ii.pt.  l,p.  173,  fol.  1715. 

Another  link,  however,  in  the  chain  of  evidence  is  supplied 
in  Foxes  account  of  Latimers  Disputation  at  Oxford,  April 
18,  1554,  already  quoted  from  at  p.  39.  Weston,  one  of  his 
opponents,  thus  addressed  him  : — 

"  Well,  master  Latimer,  this  is  our  intent,  to  will  you  well,  and 
to  exhort  you  to  come  to  yourself,  and  remember,  that  without  Noah's 
ark  there  is  no  health.  Remember  what  they  have  been,  that  were 
the  beginners  of  your  doctrine  :  none  but  a  few  flying  apostates, 
running  out  of  Germany  for  fear  of  the  faggot.  Remember  what 
they  have  been  which  have  set  forth  the  same  in  this  realm  :  a  sort 
of  fling-brains  and  light-heads,  which  were  never  constant  in  any  one 
thing  ;  as  it  was  to  be  seen  in  the  turning  of  the  table,  where  like  a 


99 

sort  of  apes,  they  could  not  tell  which  way  to  turn  their  tails,  looking 
one  day  west,  and  another  day  east ;  one  that  way,  and  another  this 
way.  They  will  be  like  (they  say)  to  the  apostles,  they  will  have  no 
churches.  A  hovel  is  good  enough  for  them.  They  come  to  the 
communion  with  no  reverence.  They  get  them  a  tankard,  and  one 
saith,  I  drink,  and  I  am  thankful  :  the  more  joy  of  thee,  saith  ano- 
ther. And  in  them  was  it  true  that  Hilary  saith,  '  Annuas  et  men- 
struas  de  Deo  fides  facimus  ; '  that  is,  '  We  make  every  year  and 
every  month  a  faith.'  A  runagate  Scot  did  take  away  the  adoration 
or  worshipping  of  Christ  in  the  Sacrament,  by  whose  procurement  that 
heresy  was  put  into  the  last  Communion-book :  so  much  prevailed 
that  one  man's  authority  at  that  time  ....  — Acts  and  Monuments, 
vol.  vi.  p.  510. 

These  last  words  (which  I  have  italicised)  would  naturally 
be  thought  to  refer  to  Knox  by  any  one  aware  of  the  promi- 
nent position  which  he  at  that  time  occupied ;  taken  with  the 
statements  just  before  quoted  they,  apparently,  are  conclusive 
on  the  point.  Moreover,  the  former  part  of  Westons  accusa- 
tion looks  in  the  same  direction ;  and  (making  due  allowance 
for  their  author  and  for  what  we  should  call,  the  not  very  re- 
fined language  of  the  period,)  describes  just  such  a  character 
as  that  depicted  by  Cranmer  in  his  Letter,  where  he  depre- 
cates the  (t  gloriouse  and  unquiet  spirites  wch  can  like  nothing 
but  that  is  after  their  own  fansye,"  and  who  choose  to  assert 
that  "whatsoever  is  not  commaunded  in  the  scripture  is  against 
the  scripture,  and  utterly  unlawfull  and  ungodlie." 

But  Dr.  Townsend,  the  Editor  of  Foxe,  throws  a  doubt 
upon  Westorfs  meaning  by  appending  to  the  expression,  "  a 
runagate  Scot,"  the  following  note : — 

"  Alexander  Ales,  or  Alesius,  who  translated  the  first  Liturgy  of 
Edward  vi.  into  Latin.  See  Dr.  Watkins'  note  in  his  life  of  Latimer, 
prefixed  to  his  Sermons  (Lond.  1824).  p.  ciii." 

I  have  not  succeeded  in  finding  the  book  here  referred  to, 
and  therefore  are  unable  to  examine  the  evidence  which  Dr. 
Watkins  furnishes.  The  Parker  Society's  Editor  of  Latimer  & 
Remains  affixes  to  Weston's  expression  a  note  similar  to  that 
of  Dr.  Townsend :  he  says — 

"  The  person  here  alluded  to  is  with  reason  supposed  to  have  been 
Alexander  Aless,  a  native  of  Edinburgh,  and  who  was  for  some  time 
an  exile  in  Germany  on  account  of  his  adherence  to  the  doctrines  of 


100 

the  reformation.  He  was  employed  to  translate  the  first  liturgy  of 
King  Edward  vi.  into  Latin.  See  Wordsworth,  Eccles.  Biosjr.  Vol. 
v.  pp.  247,  note  2  ;  604,  note  3,  3rd.  Edit." — Larimer's  Remains, 
Parker  Society,  Vol.  2.  1845. 

Pursuing  then  the  enquiry  by  this  direction  what  does  Dr. 
Wordsworth  state  ?  His  note  upon  Weston's  expression  runs 
thus;  I  quote  from  the  4th  Ed.  1853,  being  the  only  one  to 
which  I  have  access  : — 

"  *  Strype  referring  to  these  words  of  Weston,  says,  "But  there 
was  no  Scot  that  ever  I  could  read  or  hear  of,  that  assisted  at  the  re- 
view of  '  that  Communion  Book/  "  Eedes.  Memor.  vol.  iii.  p.  117. 
The  person  alluded  to  by  Weston,  I  doubt  not,  was  Alexander  Aless, 
a  Scottish  exile,  of  whose  good  services  we  met  with  some  account 
in  the  life  of  Cromwell  (see  p.  250),  and  who  translated  the  first 
liturgy  of  King  Edward  into  Latin,  preparatory  to  the  review  in 
question,  for  the  use  of  Martin  Bucer,  and  Peter  Martyr,  who  did 
not  possess  a  sufficient  knowledge  of  the  English  language,  to  qualify 
them  to  make  their  remarks  upon  the  original.  See  Buceri  Scripta 
Anglicana" — Eccles.  Biog.  Vol.  v.  p.  606.  4th  Ed.  1853. 

Yet  though  it  is  somewhat  bold  to  question  the  conclusions 
of  these  three  modern  authorities,  supported  as  they  are  by 
Strype,  I  venture  to  believe  that  a  little  examination  of 
Strype's  words  and  a  comparison  of  dates  will  satisfactorily 
shew  that  Alesms  could  not  have  been  the  person  intended  by 
Weston. 

For,  as  to  Strype,  (i.)  First,(though  he  was  probably  accurate 
in  concluding  that  "  no  Scot  .  < . .  assisted  at  the  review  of 
'  that  Communion  Book,' "  historically  supporting  this  posi- 
tion, as  he  does,  by  adding  to  Dr.  Wordsworth's  quotation  the 
sentence  "  And  indeed  Cranmer,  Ridley,  and  Cox,  were  the 
chief  that  managed  that  affair,  though  they  consulted  with 
Bucer  and  Peter  Martyr")  he  had  either  mistaken  Weston's 
allusion  and  thought  he  was  referring  to  the  revision  of 
Edward's  1st  Book,  or  else  he  did  not  know  or  had  forgotten 
at  the  time  that  the  Declaration  on  Kneeling  (to  which  Weston 
evidently  refers)  was  not  added  until  after  the  Book  as  revised 
had  received  the  sanction  of  Parliament  and  the  Crown. 

(ii.)  Secondly,  Strype  was  apparently  only  imperfectly  ac- 
quainted with  Knox's  movements  at  this  time;  for  he  thus 
continues  the  passage  just  cited; — 


101 

"  And  as  for  Knox,  the  Scotchman,  he  was  hardly  come  into 
England  (at  least  any  further  than  Newcastle)  at  this  time,  much 
less  had  anything  to  do  with  that  work." 

But  as  we  have  seen  (p.  93)  Knox  was  appointed  a  Royal 
Chaplain  in  December  1551  ;  the  Act  of  Uniformity  was  not 
passed  till  April  6,  1552;  and  Knox,  as  Strype  himself  states 
(see  p.  93),  was  appointed  on  Oct  2,  1552,  to  revise  the 
Articles  of  Religion  in  his  capacity  of  King's  Chaplain,  So 
that  here  is  presumptive  evidence  of  his  presence  not  being 
wholly  new  in  London  or  at  the  Court  when  called  upon  by 
the  Council  to  assist  in  this  latter  responsible  task. 

(iii.)  Thirdly,  Strype  was  seemingly  disinclined  to  believe 
Weston  (as  is  often  his  wont  with  regard  to  Romanist 
writers) ;  though  had  he  known  or  remembered  John 
Utenhovius's  Letter  (see  p.  93)  and  Cranmer's  Letter  to  the 
Council  (on  which  I  am  now  commenting,)  it  is  very  unlikely 
that  he  would  have  written  as  he  did  with  regard  to  the  alle- 
gation that  "  a  runagate  Scot "  caused  the  "  heresy,"  as 
Weston  chose  to  call  it,  of  the  Declaration  on  Kneeling  to  be 
"  put  into  the  last  Communion-book."  It  is  much  more 
likely  that  he  would  have  coincided  with  the  judgment  of  the 
Editor  of  Utenhovius's  Letter,  who  says — 

"  The  preacher  referred  to  was  probably  Knox,  though  it  does 
not  appear  that  he  was  '  chaplain  to  the  Duke  of  Northumberland ' : 
but  possibly  this  may  have  been  a  mistake  on  the  part  of  the  writer." 
—Orig.  Letters,  Parker  Society,  1847.  Vol.  ii.  p.  592. 

Thus  much,  then,  with  regard  to  Strype's  statement.  As 
to  Aless,  who  is  supposed  by  the  writers  I  have  quoted  to  be 
aimed  at  by  Weston,  dates  seem  to  put  it  almost  out  of  the 
question  that  he  could  have  been  meant.  Indeed  it  is  some- 
what surprising  that  they  all,  apparently,  omitted  to  enquire 
where  Alesius  was  at  the  revision  of  1 552 :  this  is  the  more 
remarkable  in  Dr.  Wordsworth's  case,  for  in  his  notice  of 
Alesius,  in  the  very  volume  from  which  I  have  been  quoting, 
he  thus  speaks  of  him  : — 

"  After  the  fall  of  Cromwell  he  returned  to  Germany,  and  was 
made  professor  of  divinity  at  Frankfort  on  the  Oder,  which  place  he 
soon  left  in  consequence  of  giving  offence  to  the  Elector  of  Branden- 


102 

burg.  He  returned  to  Leipsig,  and  was  there  also  chosen  professor 
of  divinity,  which  post  he  retained  till  his  death  in  1565." — Eccles. 
Biog.  vol.  v.  p.  250. 

I  quote  also  another  account  of  him :  Chalmers  says — 

"  The  change  of  religion,  which  happened  in  England  after  the 
marriage  of  Henry  viii  with  Anna  Boleyn,  induced  Ales  to  go  to 
London,  in  1535,  where  he  was  highly  esteemed  by  Cranmer,  arch- 
bishop of  Canterbury,  Latimer,  and  Thomas  Cromwel,  who  was  at 
that  time  in  favour  with  the  King.  Upon  the  fall  of  these  favorites 
[i.  e.  in  1540],  he  was  obliged  to  return  to  Germany  [whither  he  had 
retired  from  his  canonry  of  St.  Andrew's  some  few  years  before}, 
when  the  Elector  of  Brandenburg  appointed  him  professor  of  divinity 
at  Frankfort  upon  the  Oder,  in  1540." — Biog.  Diet.  Vol.  i.  p.  401. 

It  appears,  therefore,  that  for  25  years,  viz.  from  1540  to 
1565,  that  is  to  say  during  the  latter  part  of  Henry's,  the 
whole  of  Edward's,  and  the  former  part  of  Elizabeth's  reigns, 
Aless  was  residing  on  the  Continent :  nor  am  I  aware  that, 
beyond  his  translation  of  Edward's  1st  Book  already  men- 
tioned, there  is  anything  to  indicate  that  he  took  any  part  in 
or  materially  influenced  the  English  Reformation  movement, 
after  he  left  England  in  1540.  Moreover  everything  tends 
to  shew  that  the  influence  brought  to  bear  upon  the  Privy 
Council,  in  reference  to  the  question  of  Kneeling  at  the 
Sacrament  was  then  a  local  one  :  and,  too,  that  it  was  mainly 
a  sudden  movement,  subsequent  to  the  completion  of  the  Book 
of  1552,  and  therefore  one  from  which  lack  of  time  alone 
must  probably  have  excluded  the  operation  of  any  such  dis- 
tant action  as  that  of  Alesius. 

All  these  considerations  seem,  consequently,  to  make  it 
almost,  if  not  wholly,  a  moral  certainty  that  John  Knox  was, 
as  I  have  argued,  the  person  to  whom  Weston  referred,  whom 
Cranmer  answered  in  his  Letter  to  the  Council,  and  whose 
objections  led  to  the  Declaration  on  Kneeling. 

There  is  another  noticeable  point  in  Weston's  words  to 
Latimer.  To  the  expression  "  They  will  be  like  (they  say) 
to  the  apostles,"  Foxe  appends  a  note  which  is  specially  to  be 
observed ;  the  more  so  as  he  was  a  contemporary  historian,  and 
certainly  no  favourer  of  Roman  doctrine.  He  asks  : — 

"  Who  be  these,  or  who  be  they,  master'oblocutor,  that  will  be  like 


103 

the  Apostles,  that  will  have  no  churches  ? — that  be  runagates  out  of 
Germany  ? — that  get  them  tankards  ? — that  make  monthly  faiths  ? — 
that  worship  not  Christ  in  all  his  Sacraments? — Speak  truth  man 
and  shame  the  devil." 

Here  we  have  a  very  just  rebuke  to  Weston,  the  Prolocu- 
tor, whose  object  plainly  was  to  damage  the  English  Reforms, 
by  identifying  them  with  certain  extreme  offshoots  of  the 
Foreign  Reformation  ;  for,  while  it  cannot  be  denied  that  the 
relations  of  these  latter  to  the  English  Bishops  were  much 
too  intimate  not  to  be  prejudicial  to  the  Church  of  England, 
Weston  was  too  well  versed  in  the  occurrences  of  Edward's 
reign  not  to  know  that  he  was  libelling  the  Eucharistic 
Offices,  which  had  been  prepared  under  theJKing's  authority, 
and  was  maligning  their  compilers.  He  could  not  but  be 
aware  that  the  Doctrinal,  Ritual,  and  Ceremonial  changes 
sprang  mainly'  from  the  English  Episcopate,  and  had  been 
carried  on  by  the  Church  of  England's  own  organization.  It 
was  quite  within  the  compass  of  his  information — that, 
although  certain  leading  Foreigners  had  been  taken  into 
counsel,  yet,  the  English  Ecclesiastical  authorities  were 
guided  by  principles  definite  enough  to  exclude  heretical 
innovations  in  Faith  and  Practice ;  nor  could  he  be  ignorant 
of  the  fact  that,  eager  as  Cranmer  and  othe/s  were  to  provide 
comprehensive  forms  of  Divine  Service,  they  were  fully  alive 
to  the  danger  of  seeming  to  countenance  the  extravagancies 
of  certain  Continental  residents  in  England  who  were  anxious 
to  shelter  themselves  under  an  apparent  shadow  of  the  English 
Reformation.  Let  it  be  assumed  that  even  Weston's  strong 
language  is  not  an  overdrawn  description  of  some  few  of  these 
(though  Foxe's  comment  seems  to  bespeak  a  more  charitable 
view)  the  acrimonious  Prolocutor  could  not  but  have  been 
fully  cognizant  of  their  antagonism  to  the  leading  Anglican 
Reformers.  That  they  were  a  source  of  great  disquiet  to  the 
Archbishop,  notwithstanding  all  he  was  disposed  to  yield, 
must  have  been  sufficiently  evident  at  the  time :  his  Letter 
to  the  Privy  Council,  now  produced,  furnishes  us  with  im- 
portant additional  testimony  to  the  same  effect. 

Though,  however,  we  may  fairly  claim  Foxe's  responsive 


104 

question — "  Who  be  these,  t . .  that  worship  not  Christ  in  all 
his  Sacraments  ?  " — as  a  proof  that  Weston's  charge  was  both 
false  and  malicious  when  he  asserted  that  the  Declaration  on 
Kneeling  (for  to  that  he  must  have  referred)  "  did  take  away 
adoration  or  worshipping  of  Christ  in  the  Sacrament " ;  it  be- 
comes all  the  more  important  to  consider  whether  Knox 
aimed  at  such  a  result,  now  that  we  may  say,  I  think,  that  he 
was  the  proximate  cause  of  this  explanatory  addition  to  the 
Eucharistic  Offices  of  Edward's  2nd  Prayer  Book. 

To  determine  this  point,  two  enquiries  must  be  made  ; 
First,  What  was  Knox's  alleged  objection  to  kneeling? 
Next,  Was  there  anything  in  his  opinions  on  the  Real  Pre- 
sence which  would  lead  him  to  deny  that  worship  was  due  to 
Christ  in  the  Eucharist  ? 

With  respect  to  the  first  of  these  questions  some  informa- 
tion has  been  already  furnished  in  Cranmer's  Letter  (p.  77) 
and  Knox's  answer  to  the  Privy  Council  (p.  97) :  his  language 
on  three  other  occasions  is  of  precisely  the  same  character. 
Thus,  in  "  A  Vindication  of  the  Doctrine  that  the  Sacrifice 
of  the  Mass  is  Idolatry.  1550",  he  says: — 

<4 All  wirschipping,  honouring,  or  service  inventid  by  the 

braine  of  man  in  the  religioun  of  God,  without  his  own  express  com- 
mandment, is  Idolatrie. .  . ." — Laing's  Knox,  Vol.  Hi.  p.  34. 

So,  again,  in  his  "  Faythful  admonition  unto  the  Profes- 
sours  of  God's  truthe  in  England,"  written  probably  at 
Dieppe  (where  he  seems  to  have  remained  from  the  end  of 
May  to  the  20th  July  1554  in  order,  as  he  says,  to  "learn 
the  estait  of  Ingland  and  Scotland",)  and  "Imprinted  at 
Kalykow  [apparently,  as  Mr.  Laing  thinks  (Vol.  3,  p.  253) 
a  fictitious  name  for  Dieppe],  the  20.  daye  of  Julii  1554"; 
he  writes  thus,  evidently  referring  to  Edward's  2nd  Book: — 

"  And  also  God  gave  boldnesse  and  knowledge  to  the  court  of 
Parliament  to  take  awaye  the  round  clipped  God,  wherein  standeth 
al  the  holines  of  the  Papistes,  and  also  to  commaunde  common 
breade  to  be  used  at  the  Lorde's  table ;  and  also  to  take  awaye  the 
moste  parte  of  superstitions  (kneling  at  the  Lorde's  table  excepted) 
which  before  prophaned  Christes  true  religion." — Laing's  Knox, 
Vol.  3,  p.  279. 

Six  years  afterwards  he  states  his  view  even  more  expli- 


105 

citlyin  the  "  Buke  of  Discipline  May  20.  1560";  his  words 
are: — 

"  The  Tabill  of  the  Lord  is  then  most  rychtlie  ministred,  quhen 
it  approacheth  most  ney  to  Christis  awin  actioun*  But  plane  it  is, 
that  at  that  Supper,  Christ  Jesus  sat  with  his  discipillis,  and  thair- 
foir  do  we  juge,  that  sitting  at  a  table  is  most  convenient  to  that  holie 
actioun  : . .  . . 

"  That  the  Minister  breik  the  breid,  and  distribute  the  same  to 
those  that  be  nyxt  unto  him,  commaunding  the  rest,  every  one  with 
reverence  and  sobrietie,  to  breake  with  other,  we  think  it  nyest  to 
Christis  actioun,  and  to  the  perfite  practice  [of  the  Apostles,]  as  we 
read  it  in  Sanct  Paull. — Laing's  Knox,  Vol.  2,  p.  114. 

Such  was  Knox's  studied  and  uniform  language  on  five 
occasions,  at  intervals  from  1550  to  1560,  that  is  to  say  before 
contemporaneous  with)  and  subsequent  to  the  Book  of  1552  : 
and  it  is  abundantly  plain  that  he  objected  to  kneeling  at  the 
Sacrament  from  an  alleged  (need  we  doubt  it  a  real,  however 
mistaken,)  reverence  for  Christ's  institution  :  he  accounted  it 
a  mere  human  (not  even  an  apostolic}  polity,  and,  as  such,  not 
convenient,  but  superstitious  and  idolatrous. 

Unless,  then,  it  can  be  certainly  affirmed  that  Knox  held 
that  Christ  was  neither  adorable  nor  adored  when  giving 
Himself  to  His  disciples  at  the  institution  of  the  Eucharist, 
we  are  not,  I  conceive,  entitled  to  argue  that  he  refused  to 
kneel,  when  the  Church  commemorated  that  act,  because  it 
betokened  a  worship  of  Christ :  rather  we  ought,  I  think,  to 
argue  that  he  designed  to  render  the  same  honour  to  Christ 
which  was  due  and  rendered  by  His  Apostles  when  receiving 
from  Himself  His  Body  and  Blood ;  and  that  had  he  been 
convinced  of  kneeling  being  the  "  most  nigh  to  Christ's  own 
action"  he  would  not  have  accounted  it  either  superstitious  or 
idolatrous,  but  just  that  posture  which  "  is  most  convenient 
to  that"  holy  action,"  because  he  considered  "  that  it  was  most 
sure  to  follow  the  example  of  Christ"  and  "  the  perfect  prac- 
tice of  the  Apostles  ". 

But  I  proposed  also  to  enquire  whether  kneeling,  as  imply- 
ing worship  of  Christ,  was  obnoxious  to  the  Scotch  Reformer 
on  account  of  his  views  of  Christ's  Eucharistic  Presence. 

One  statement  of  his  opinions,  two  years  before  his  remon- 

p 


106 

strance  against  the  Rubric  of  Edward's  2nd  Book,  occurs  in 
"  A  summary,  according  to  the  Holy  Scriptures,  of  the  Sera- 
ment  of  the  Lord's  Supper.  1550" ;  it  is  as  follows  : — 

"First,  we  confess  that  it  is  ane  holie  actioun,  ordaynit  of 
God.... 

By  it  "  he  confirmeth  and  sealleth  up  to  us  his  proraeis  and  com- 
munion. .  . . 

•'And  also  that  heir  with  the  Lord  Jesus  gathereth  us  unto  ane 
visibill  hodie. . . .  and. . .  .calleth  us  to  rememberance  of  his  Death 
and  Passioun ...... 

"And  as  concerning  theis  wordis,  Hoc  est  corpus  meum, ....  we 
acknowledge  that  it  [transubstantiation]  is  no  artikill  of  our  faith 
which  can  saif  us And  again,  yf  we  do  not  believe  his  hodilie 

presence  in  the  bread  and  wine,  that  sail  not  dampn  us,  but  the 

absence  out  of  our  hart  throw  unbelief. 

"  Now,  yf  thai  wold  heir  object,  that yit  ar  we  bound  to  believe 

it  because  of  God's  word.... we  answer,  That  we  believe  God's 
Word,  and  confess  that  it  is  trew,  but  not  so  to  be  understand  as  the 

Papistis  grosslie  affirm e.     For  in  the  Sacrament  we  receive 

Jesus  Christ  spirituallie,  as  did  the  Fatheris  of  the  Old  Testament, 
according  to  St.  Paulis  saying.  And  yf  men  wold  weill  way,  how 
that  Chryst,  ordeyning  this  Halie  Sacrament  of  his  bodie  and  blude, 
spake  theis  wordis  Sacramentallie,  doubtless  thai  wold  never  so 
grosslie  and  foolischlie  understand  thame,  contrary  to  all  the  Scrip- 
tures, and  to  the  exposition  of  St.  Augustine,  St.  Hierome,  Fulgen- 
tius,  Vigilius,  Origines,  and  many  other  godlie  writers." — Laing's 
Knox,  Vol.  3,  p.  74. 

Another  evidence  of  what  was  uppermost  in  his  mind,  at 
the  time  now  under  consideration,  is  found  in  a  passage  of 
his  "  Admonition,"  of  which  I  have  already  (at  p.  104)  quoted 
the  conclusion;  he  exclaims  in  his  own,  and  indeed  the 
period's,  strong  and  coarse  style : — 

"  Transubstantiation,  the  byrde  that  the  Devel  hatched  by  Pope 
Nicholas,  and  sythe  that  tyme  fostered  and  nurryshed  by  al  his 
children,  prestes,  freres,  monks,  and  other  his  conjured  and  sworne 
souldiers,  and  in  this  laste  dayes,  chiefly  by  Stephen  Gardiner  and 
his  blacke  broode  in  England, — Transubstantiation  (I  saye)  was  not 
then  clearly  confuted  and  myghtely  overthrowen,  and  therefore  God 
put  wysedome  in  the  tounges  of  his  ministers  and  messengers  to  utter 
[i.e.  to  disclose  or  expose]  that  vayne  vanitie :  and  specially  gave 
such  strength  to  the  penne*  of  that  reverend  father  in  God,  Thomas 
Cranmer,  Archebysshop  of  Canterbury,  to  cut  the  knottes  of  develyshe 
sophistrie,  lyncked  and  knyt  by  the  Devil's  Gardener,  and  his  blynd 
bussardes,  to  holde  the  veritie  of  God  under  bondage,  that  rather  I 

•  Referring  to  "  Cranmer's  Defence,"  &c,  1550. 


107 

thinke  they  shal  condemne  his  workes,  (whiche,  notwithstanding, 
shal  continue  and  remaine  to  their  confusion),  then  they  shal  enter- 
prise to  answer  the  same." — Laing's  Knooa,  vol.  3,  p.  279. 

Further ;  two  years  after  this ;  in  "  The  maner  of  the  Lorde's 
Supper"  as  "  used  in  the  Englishe  Congregation  at  Geneva" 
1556,  "approued,  by  the  famous  and  godly  learned  man, 
John  Caluyn"  and  which  Knox  assisted  to  prepare,  the  "ex- 
hortation" says : — 

"  ....  let  us  not  suffer  our  mindes  to  wander  aboute  the 
consideration  of  these  earthlie  thynges  (which  we  see  present  to  our 
eis,  and  fele  with  our  handes,)  to  seek  Christ  bodely  presente  in 
them,  as  if  he  were  inclosed  in  the  breade  or  wyne,  or  as  yf  these 
elementes  were  tOUHied  and  chaunged  into  the  Sllbstaillice  of  his 
fleyshe  and  blood." — Laing's  Knox,  vol.  4,  p.  194. 

Once  more ;  let  me  call  attention  to  "  The  Confessione  of 
the  Fay  the,"  17  Aug.  1560,  where  in  Chap,  xxi,  "  Off  the 
Sacramentis"  we  read  thus : — 

"  ....  in  the  Supper,  rychtlie  used,  Christ  Jesus  is  so 
joyned  with  us,  that  he  becumis  the  verray  nurishment  and  foode 
of  our  saullis.  Not  that  we  ymagine  any  traiissiibstailtiatioim  of 
bread  into  Christis  uaturall  body,  and  of  wyne  in  his  natural! 
bloode,  (as  the  Papistes  have  perniciouslie  taught  and  dampnablie 
beleved ;)  but  this  union  and  communioun  whiche  we  have  with  the 
bodye  and  bloode  of  Christ  Jesus  in  the  rycht  use  of  the  sacraments, 
is  wrocht  by  operatioun  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  who  by  trew  faith  caryes 
us  above  all  thingis  that  ar  \isibile,  carnall,  and  earthlie,  and 
maikis  us  to  feid  upoun  the  body  and  bloode  of  Christe  Jesus,  whiche 
was  ones  brokin  and  schedd  for  us,  whiche  now  is  in  the  heavin,  and 
appeareth  in  the  presence  of  his  Father  for  us.  And  yit,  notwith- 
standing the  far  distance  of  place,  whiche  is  betwix  his  bodye  now 
glorified  in  the  heavin,  and  us  now  mortall  in  this  earth,  yit  we 
most  assuredlie  beleve,  that  the  bread  which  we  break  is  the  commu- 
nion of  Christis  body,  and  the  cupp  which  we  bless  is  the  communion 

of  his  bloode But  all  this,  we  say,  cumis  by  trew  fayth,  whiche 

apprehendeth  Christ  Jesus,  who  onlie  maikis  his  Sacramentis  eifec- 
tuall  unto  us ;  and  thairfoir,  whosoever  sclandereth  us,  as  that  we 
affirmed  or  beleved  Sacramentis  to  be  onlie  nakid  and  bair  signes,  do 
injurie  unto  us,  and  speak  against  a  manifest  treuth.  But  this 
liber allie  and  francklie  we  most  confess,  that  we  maik  ane  distinc- 
tioun  betwix  Christ  Jesus,  in  his  liatlLVilll  Substance,*  and  betwix 
the  elementis  in  the  Sacramentall  signes  ;  so  that  we  will  neather 

wirschip  the  signes  in  place  of  that  which  is  signified  by 

thame  ;  neather  yit  do  we  dispyse  and  interpret  thame  as  unprofitable 
and  vane ; . .  . .' — Laing's  Knox,  vol.  2,  pp.  114  and  115. 

*  "  In  the  old  printed  copies,  '  in  his  eternall  substance.'  " 


108 

Now  it  is  unnecessary,  for  my  purpose,  to  enquire  whether 
these  quotations  imply  a  full  appreciation,  by  their  author,  of 
the  Catholic  Doctrine  of  the  Real  Objective  Presence ;  though, 
in  truth,  some  of  the  language  exceeds  what  probably  would 
be  used  by  many  who  disclaim  all  sympathy  with  Knox,  and 
would  be  sorry  to  lie  under  the  least  suspicion  of  not  being 
greatly  in  advance  of  his  Sacramental  views.  The  question 
here  is — are  they  inconsistent  with  such  a  belief  in  Christ's 
Eucharistic  Presence  as  could  accord  worship  to  Him  in  the 
Sacrament  of  the  Altar  ("  the  Supper  "  as  Knox  calls  it) ; 
or  must  they  have  excluded  all  idea  of  both  from  the  mind 
of  him  who  used  them  ?  I  humbly  think  not. 

It  is  abundantly  evident,  indeed,  that  a  vehement  antipathy 
to  the  doctrine  of  TRANSUBSTANTIATION  was  uppermost  in 
Knox's  thoughts ;  and  that  he  dreaded,  as  its  necessary  con- 
sequence, the  belief  of  a  "  carnall,"  "  bodely,"  "naturall," 
"  grosslie"  affirmed,  presence  of  Christ  "inclosed"  in  the  ele- 
ments :  though,  on  the  other  hand,  he  advocates  the  use  of 
the  term  "  sacramentallie"  as  being  consonant  to  Holy  Scrip- 
ture and  the  "exposition"  of  the  Fathers,  whose  teaching  he 
does  not  shrink  from  avowing,  howsoever  he  may  have  con- 
strued it ;  and  he,  apparently,  accepts  Cranmer's  published 
"  Defence"  as  a  true  exponent  of  Eucharistic  Doctrine. 

But  in  his  Formulary  of  1560,  which  may  not  with  any  fair- 
ness be  assumed  to  record  higher  and  more  Catholic  senti- 
ments than  he  held  in  1552,  he  uses  an  expression  which  I 
cannot  but  consider  as  warranting  the  negative  answer  just 
given  to  the  question  suggested  by  the  before-cited  passages* 
For  Knox's  "Confession,"  after  pointing  out  "ane  distinc- 
tioun  betwix  Christ  Jesus,  in  his  naturall  substance,  and  be- 
twix  the  elementes  in  the  Sacramentall  signes,"  declares  this 
conclusion — "  so  that  we  will  neather  wirschip  the  signes  in 
place  of  that  which  is  signified  by  thame;  neather  yet  do  we 
dispyse  and  interprete  thame  as  unprofitable  and  vane."  As, 
however,  Sacraments  are  just  before  declared  not  "  to  be 
onlie  nakid  and  lair  signes"  ;  but  "  the  bread  which  we  break 
is  the  communion  of  Christ's  body,  and  the  cupp  which  we 
bless  is  the  communion  of  his  bloode,"  "  notwithstanding  the 


109 

far  distance  of  place,  whiche  is  betwix  his  bodye  now  glori- 
fied in  the  heavin,  and  us  now  mortall  in  this  earth,"  need  we 
infer  that  Knox  meant  to  refuse  adoration  in  the  Sacrament 
to  Him  Whose  Body  and  Blood  he  declares  (here  and  in  the 
"Summary")  to  be  "  spirituallie"  communicated  "  in  the 
rycht  use"  of  the  Lord's  Supper  ?  Rather,  should  we  not 
endeavour  to  construe,  in  the  most  Catholic  sense  of  which 
they  are  fairly  capable,  the  (necessarily  well  weighed)  terms 
of  this  public  Formulary  of  Faith ;  and  therefore  charitably 
assume  that  he  did  mean  to  uphold  the  worship  "  of  that 
which  is  signified,"  while  rightly  condemning  the  worship  of 
"  the  signes."  Let  it  be  granted  here,  for  argument's  sake, 
that  the  utmost  he  meant  to  teach  was — that  in  the  act  of  re- 
ception only  Christ  was  sacramentally  present  to  communicate 
Himself — and  there  seems  sufficient  in  such  a  doctrine  to  have 
led  him  to  kneel  at  that  time  in  token  of  adoration  of  Christ, 
if  only  he  could  have  regarded  that  posture  as  consistent  with 
his  theory  of  legitimate  worship  and,  more  especially,  of  the 
pattern  to  be  followed  in  the  Celebration  of  the  Eucharist. 

Moreover  it  is  important  to  recollect  that  at  the  very  period 
when  Knox  raised  his  objection  to  "  kneeling  at  the  tyme  of 
the  receavinge  of  the  Sacrament,"  he  must  have  concurred  in 
the  theological  decisions  of  the  English  Convocation ;  unless 
indeed  he  received  the  Forty-two  Articles  of  1552  in  a  non- 
natural  sense :  for  his  signature  (and  the  signatures  of  the 
other  five  Royal  Chaplains*)  is  attached  to  a  copy  of  them 

*  As  it  is  of  some  importance  to  know  whether  Knox  was  or  was  not  one  of 
King  Edward's  six  Chaplains,  it  seems  worth  while  to  advert  to  a  statement  made 
by  Mr.  Barnes  the  Editor  of  a  new  Edition  of  Strype's  Memorials  of  Cranmer, 
2  vols.,  Eoutledge  end  Co.,  1853. 

At  p.  423,  Vol.  1,  Strype,  after  mentioning  the  application  to  the  Archbishop 
(see  p.  96)  to  present  Knox  to  All-hallows  Bread-street,  makes  this  remark : — 
"  This  Knox  was  the  man  whose  name  was  so  dashed  in  the  King's  Journal, 
where  the  names  of  the  King's  six  Chaplains  were  inserted,  that  Bishop  Burnet 
could  not  read  it.  (Collect.  Vol.  ii.  p.  42.)" 

To  this  passage  Mr.  Barnes  the  Editor,  appends  the  following  note  "  [vol.  ii. 
part  2,  p.  43.  Notwithstanding  that  Knox  has  been  hitherto  supposed  to  have 
been  one'  of  Enward  VI.'s  chaplains,  upon  the  authority  of  Burnet,  of  which 
Strype  availed  himself,  it  is  now  positively  proved  that  his  was  not  the  name, 
'  dashed  in  the"  King's  Journal,'  the  Editor  of  this  work  for  the  Ecclesiastical 
History  Society,  with  the  assistance  of  Sir  Frederic  Madden,  having  discovered 
that  the  name  erased  was  '  Eastwick,'  and  not  'Knox.']" 

It  is  not  clear  whether  the  Editor  intends  in  this  note  to  deny  absolutely  that 
Kaox  was  one  of  the  Royal  Chaplains,  or  whether  he  only  means  to  say  that  this 


110 

submitted  for  their  consideration  by  the  Privy  Council  on  the 
21st  October;  and  in  this  Latin  copy,  which  is  in  the  State 
Paper  Office,  the  Articles  (with  no  very  material  and  chiefly 
verbal  differences)  are  found  as  finally  published  by  Royal 
Authority  in  May,  1553. 

Now  of  these  Articles  two  only,  the  XXIXth  and  XXXth 
treat  specifically  of  the  Holy  Eucharist ;  the  latter  being  in- 
titled  (in  Latin)  "  De  unlca  Christi  oblatione  iu  cruce  perfect  a" 
(in  English)  "  Of  the  perfeicte  oblacion  of  Christ e  made  upon 
the  crosse"  ;  the  former  being  headed  (in  Latin)  "  De  Coena 
Domini",  (in  English)  "  Of  the  Lord's  Supper"  The  English 
version  of  the  XXIXth  Article  has  been  already  given  at 
p.  32,  and  consists  of  four  Clauses :  in  the  State  Paper  Office 
Latin  version  the  last  three  parts  are  treated  as  separate  Ar- 
ticles and  denominated  thus*  (2)  Art.  XXX.  de  Transubstan- 
tiatione ;  (3)  Art.  XXXI.  de  Corporali  Christi  praesentia  in 
Eucharistia ;  (4<)  Art.  XXXIL  Sacramentum  Eucharistiae 
non  asservandum. 

But  it  seems  plain  from  an  inspection  of  this  Article  that 
its  whole  aim  and  drift  was  against  the  Roman  doctrine :  with 
this  it  apparently  contents  itself:  paragraphs  2  and  3  give  no 

passage  in  Bang  Edward's  journal  must  not  be  relied  upon  in  proof  of  his  ap- 
pointment. So  far  indeed  as  anything  I  can  find  in  Burnet  applies  he  does  not 
seem  to  have  had  any  douht  who  the  Chaplains  were  ;  for  he  says  (Part  ii.  bk. 
l,p.  162,  fol.  1715)  "These  were  £ill,  Harley,  Pern,  Grindal,  Bradford,  and 
Knox  :"  and  this  list  corresponds  with  that  which  he  furnishes  in  his  copy  of 
the  King's  journal.  And  though  Strype  says  "  Burnet  could  not  read"  Knox's 
name  hecause  it  was  "  so  dashed,"  he  does  not  imply  that  Burnet  was  in  error. 
It  is  not  unlikely  that  Burnet's  rendering  may  have  been  founded  upon  some 
contemporaneous  evidence.  Indeed  if  the  erased  name,  in  the  journal  of  Dec. 
18,  1551,  was  "East  wick"  this  need  only  prove  that  another  was  selected  in 
his  stead  :  why  may  not  Knox  have  been  that  other  ?  That  one  alteration  was 
made  in  the  List  seems  plain,  for  Strype,  in  quoting  from  the  Council  Book  of 
Oct.  2,  1552,  the  names  of  the  Chaplains  to  whom  the  Book  of  Articles  was  sent 
for  revision,  gives  Horn  instead  of  Bradford  as  one  of  the  six — a  reference 
"  verified"  as  the  Editor  states  (p.  394). 

But  whatever  may  be  the  history  of  the  erasure  in  Edward's  journal,  it  does 
not  in  the  least  detract  from  the  evidence  that  Knox  was  a  Royal  Chaplain  at  the 
time  of  Edward's  second  Book  receiving  the  sanction  of  Parliament:  this  is  all 
that  is  necessary  to  identify  him  with  the  objection  to  the  new  Rubric  on  Kneel- 
ing. Not  indeed  that  I  think  Mr.  Barnes's  remark  at  all  discredits  Burnet's 
original  List  which,  it  is  well  to  observe,  is  (except  in  the  case  of  Horn)  identical 
with  the  Council's  List  of  Oct  2,  1552,  and  with  the  names  signed  to  the  State 
Paper  Office  Copy  of  the  Articles  of  1652— a  fair  presumption,  at  all  events,  that 
Knox  was  one  of  the  six  Chaplains  appointed  in  December  1551. 

*  See  also  Hardwicke  on  the  Articles  p.  300. 


111 

indication  of  being  intentionally  directed  against  two  several 
views  of  the  Real  Presence  ;  "  the  reall  and  bodelie  \realem 
et  corporalem]  presence  (as  thei  terme  it)  of  Christ's  flesh  and 
bloude"  deprecated  in  the  3rd  Paragraph,  seems  neither  more 
nor  less  than  the  "  Transubstantiation"  condemned  in  the 
2nd  Paragraph.  It  may,  indeed,  have  been  that  the  language 
of  the  3rd  Paragraph  of  the  Article,  asserting  that  "  the 
bodie  of  Christe  cannot  bee  presente  at  one  time  in  many  and 
diverse  places",  was  meant  to  condemn  a  supposed  ubiquita- 
rian  doctrine  involved  in  Transubstantiation ;  if  so,  it  of 
course  tacitly  pronounced  likewise  against  Lutheran  ubiqui- 
tarianism  :  though,  whether  or  not  its  authors  contemplated 
any  allusion  to  Lutheran  doctrine  (while  an  immaterial  ques- 
tion here)  will  be  best  determined  by  asking — to  whom  do 
the  words  "  as  thei  terme  it"  allude  ?  There  can  hardly  be 
a  doubt,  I  think,  that  they  referred  exclusively  to  the  Roman 
party,  considering  with  whom  the  Eucharistic  controversy  in 
England  had  been  carried  on  and  recollecting  that  the  language 
which  has  been  already  quoted  shows  "  real  and  corporal*' 
to  have  been  the  current  phrase  which  was  therein  maintained 
and  opposed. 

One  other  view  of  Eucharistic  Doctrine  besides  the  Roman 
seems  indeed  to  have  been  designedly  referred  to  in  the  First 
paragraph  of  the  Article  :  of  this  probably  it  may  be  said  (as 
Mr.  Hardwick,  p.  104,  remarked  of  Art.  xxvi.)  that  it  was 
"diiected..  ..against  the  prevailing  Zwinglian  notion,  that 
sacraments  were  no  more  than  empty  rites  and  external 
badges":  but,  as  we  have  seen,  the  language  of  Knox  alike 
condemns  this.  The  object  of  the  Article,  then,  seems  limited 
to  a  denial  of  the  doctrine  of  Christ's  absence  from  this  His 
Sacrament ;  and  to  a  refutation  of  such  a  Presence  as  Tran- 
substantiation was  accounted  to  imply:  in  Mr.  Hardwick's 
words — 

"  The  twenty-ninth,  '  Of  the  Lord's  Supper',  while  avoiding  the 
errors  of  the  Zwinglian  School,  condemns  the  opposite  dogma  of  a 
physical  tranBubstantiation  in  the  elements,  as  repugnant  to  the  Word 
of  God,  and  as  inconsistent  with  the  true  humanity  of  our  Saviour 
and  his  local  residence  in  heaven." — p.  104. 


112 

Having  regard,  therefore,  to  all  these  considerations  it  may 
with  some  certainty  be  assumed,  I  think,  that  Knox's  objec- 
tion to  kneeling  at  the  Sacrament  was  not  at  all  founded  upon 
doctrinal  grounds  and  that  consequently  any  question  of  the 
worship  due  to  Christ  therein,  or  of  kneeling  being  the  ex- 
pression of  it,  was  foreign  to  his  purpose  in  opposing  the  re- 
quirement of  the  Rubric ;  and  this  will  further  account  for 
the  entire  absence  of  theological  argument  in  Cranmer's 
Letter  to  the  Council :  he,  as  I  think  has  been  proved,  had 
at  that  time  mainly  to  resist  an  innovation  ostensibly  based 
upon  a  theory  of  purely  Ecclesiastical  Order  which,  in  com- 
mon with  his  co-advisers  and  most  of  (if  not  all)  the  Council, 
the  Archbishop  refused  to  recognize. 

But,  reasonably  or  not,  the  objection  had  been  raised; 
raised,  too,  by  one  who  was  not  likely  to  abandon  his  opposi- 
tion but  would  probably  use  his  opportunities  to  repeat  it  in 
public  with  the  vehemence  which  had  already  attracted  at- 
tention in  high  quarters  and  would  be  certain  to  secure  him 
a  favourable  hearing  from  others  also.  Further,  his  indiscri- 
minate charges  of  superstition,  inapplicable  though  they  were 
to  the  First  Prayer  Book,  and  most  inappropriate  to  the  re- 
vised Einglish  Office,  were  sure  to  draw  towards  the  Second 
Book,  that  disaffection  which  had  been  already  exhibited  to 
the  earlier  Ritual  by  those  who  had  but  little  sympathy  with 
Knox  save  in  his  denunciation  of  the  Mass. 

To  yield  to  Knox's  objection  was  impossible  without  sacri- 
ficing that  principle  of  deference  to  Antiquity  which  was  a 
main  feature  in  the  English  Reformation  movement :  Cran- 
mer's Letter  to  the  Council  shews  how  hopeless  he  regarded 
the  attempt;  "If  such  men  should  bee  hearde,"  he  says, 
"  although  the  boke  were  made  everye  yere  anewe,  yet  should 
it  not  lacke  faultes  in  their  opinion" :  he  declares  that  upon 
their  theory  it  were  best  and  necessary  to  "  take  awaie  the 
hole  boke  of  service.  For  what  should  men  travell  to  sett  an 
ordre  in  the  forme  of  service,  if  no  ordre  can  bee  sett,  but 
that  is  alreadye  prescribed  by  the  Scripture."  This  was  his 
answer  to  Knox's  theory  of  Church  Polity ;  and  consistently 
therewith  the  Archbishop  and  his  coadjutors  dismissed  Knox's 
objection  and  decided,  as  the  fact  of  the  retention  of  the 


113 

**  prescription  of  kneelinge,"  shews,  that  it  was  "  fitt  to  re- 
mayne  as  a  commandement"  and  ought  not  "  to  bee  left  out 
of  the  boke."  That  the  Scotch  Chaplain  was  not  satisfied  with 
their  resolution  of  the  Privy  Council's  question  is  clear  from 
the  complaint  two  years  afterwards,  in  his  "  Admonition" 
(see  p.  104),  that  this  "parte  of  superstitions"  had  not  been 
taken  away. 

Yet  with  the  prospect  before  them  of  a  renewed  strife  when 
the  revised  Prayer  Book  should  make  its  appearance;  and 
looking  to  the  probability  that  the  new  Rubric  commanding 
"  kneeling  at  the  tymeof  receavinge  of  the  Sacrament"  would 
be  perversely  identified  with  the  "decrees  respecting  the 
worship  of  the  host"  which  the  Archbishop  lamented  to  learn 
were  being  passed  by  the  "adversaries.,  ..at  Trent;"  the 
natural  inference  is — that,  though  Knox's  complaint  was  un- 
heeded, it  was  deemed  prudent  that  the  "  some"  who  were 
"  offended",  and  all  others  who  might  join  their  ranks,  should 
be  deprived  of  any  such  pretence  as  this  for  attacking  the  new 
Eucharistic  Office.  Accordingly  it  was  resolved  that  neither 
by  "ignorance  and  infirmitie"  nor  by  "malice  and  obstina- 
cie"  should  the  order  to  kneel  be  "  myscons trued,  depraued, 
and  interpreted  in  a  wrong  parte,"  as  though  the  Church  of 
England's  rule  coincided  with  the  Tridentine  Canon  then 
lately  enacted  (see  page  90)  "  w«f «  ™f  aproXaTjjiUs" — concerning 
the  worshipping  of  the  bread  with  LATRIA,  i.e.,  divine  honour — 
for  such  Cranmer  evidently  feared  would  be  a  sort  of  popular 
"  idolatry"  resulting  from  the  Decree.  "  And  yet  because 
brotherly  charitie  willeth,  that  so  muche  as  conveniently 
may  be  offences  should  be  taken  away:"  therefore  it  was 
determined  to  issue  with  the  Rubric  an  explanatory  Decla- 
ration of  its  object. 

To  whom,  then,  was  the  explanation  to  be  addressed  ? 
Not,  certainly,  to  the  general  mass  of  the  worshippers  :  for, 
first,  they  were  not  the  complainants  :  and,  next,  it  would 
practically  be  useless  to  them,  placed  as  it  was  to  be  in  a 
Book  of  Public  Offices,  the  price  of  which  alone  (though 
fixed  at  a  low  rate  by  Royal  Authority)  limited  its  purchase, 
for  the  most  part,  to  just  the  number  of  copies  required  by  the 


114 

Parish  Priest  and  his  Clerk  or  Clerks.  Plainly,  therefore, 
the  intended  exposition  of  the  Rubric  on  Kneeling  was 
meant  ito  disarm  the  theological  critics  of  the  day,  of  what- 
ever class,  and  to  furnish  the  Clergy  with  an  authoritative 
reply  to  any  cavillers  in  their  parishes  who  might  invent 
objections,  or  be  incited  to  urge  them  by  some  of  those  dis- 
affected spirits  whose  position  or  attainments  gained  them 
more  or  less  notoriety. 

Such  a  manifesto,  however,  needed  to  be  clothed  in  author- 
ized language  if  it  was  to  have  weight  with  clergy  and  people  : 
this  in  Cranmer's  view  would,  no  doubt,  be  the  more  necessary 
as  it  had  to  be  issued  with  the  Prayer  Book  which  had  already, 
received  the  sanction  of  Parliament.  The  obvious  resource,  if 
it  furnished  the  requisite  materials,  was  that  Book  of  "  Articles 

.for  the  avoiding  of  con troversie  in  opinion,  and  the 

establishement  of  a  godlie  concorde,  in  certeine  matters  of 
Religion"  which  was  then  about  to  be  imposed  upon  the 
Clergy  :  it  had  already  undergone  the  criticism  of  the  Prelates, 
if  indeed  it  had  not  been  formally  submitted  to  the  Convoca- 
tion (though  this  is  not  clear) ;  and  at  that  very  time  it  was 
in  the  hands  of  Knox  and  the  other  Royal  Chaplains  for 
revision.  If  the  Articles  were  not  returned  to  the  Privy 
Council  by  the  27th  October,  the  day  on  which  the  Lord 
Chancellor  was  directed  to  add  the  Declaration,  Cranmer  had 
probably  learned,  during  the  five-and- twenty  days  that  had 
elapsed  since  they  were  sent  to  the  Chaplains,  what  was  their 
judgment  of  them ;  though,  indeed,  it  is  extremely  likely 
that  the  views  of  the  six  revisers  on  the  points  discussed  in 
the  Articles  were  previously  well  known.  Any  explanation) 
therefore,  of  the  Rubric  on  Kneeling,  based  upon  the  language 
of  the  Articles,  was  a  course  to  which  Knox  could  not  object, 
however  dissatisfied  he  might  be  at  the  retention  of  the  Rubric 
itself;  and  if  the  theological  criticism  of  the  principal  objector 
was  thus  disarmed,  no  plan  would  be  so  likely  to  prove  an 
effective  defence  against  all  other  probable  assailants  from 
kindred  quarters. 

Now,  in  the  XXIXth  of  these  Articles  (see  p.  32)  language 
would  be  found  fully  adequate  to  exclude  every  misinterpre- 


115 

tation  of  the  act  of  kneeling  at  reception  which,  so  far  I 
think  as  we  can  gather  from  their  expressions,  the  Archbishop 
and  his  associates  thought  it  of  any  moment  to  shut  out. 
Was  it  feared  that  that  token  of  adoration  (for  such  in  itself 
it  really  was)  might  be  held  to  countenance  Transubstan- 
tiation  ?  Then,  as  the  second  paragraph  of  the  Article  con- 
demned that  dogma,  it  was  only  needful  to  import  its  teaching 
into  the  Declaration;  this  was  done  in  the  words  "as 
concernynge  the  Sacramentall  bread  and  wine,  they  remayne 
styll  in  their  verye  naturall  substaunces,  and  therefore  may 
not  be  adored." 

Again :  would  it  be  thought  that  this  posture  of  worship 
(for  no  one  could  doubt  it  to  be  such)  implied  a  belief  in  that 
notion  of  a  natural,  organical,  local  presence  of  Christ's 
humanity  which  the  reforming  theologians  of  that  day  had 
been  so  vigorously  opposing  ?  The  third  paragraph  of  the 
Article  taught  the  contrary,  and,  too,  in  an  epitome  of 
scholastic  language,*  which  could  hardly  be  unfamiliar  to 

*  S.  Thomas  Aquinas,  Summa,  Pars  3,  quaest.  75,  art.  1,  "  Utrum  in  hoc 
Sacramento  sit  Corpus  Christi  secundum  veritatem." 

It  is  objected,  he  says 

"  3.  Praeterea.  Nullum  corpus  potest  esse  simul  in  pluribus  locis,  cum  nee 
Angelo  hoc  conveniat:  eadem  enim  ratione  posset  esse  ubique.  Sed  corpus 
Christi  est  verum  corpus,  et  est  in  coalo.  Ergo  videtur  quod  non  sit  secundum 
veritatem  in  sacramento  altaris,  set  solum  sicut  in  signo." 

To  which  he  answers : — 

'•  Ad  tertium  dicendum,  quod  corpus  Christi  non  est  eo  modo  in  hoc  sacra- 
mento, sicut  corpus  in  loco,  quod  suis  dimensionibus  loco  commensuratur ;  sed 
quodam  speciali  modo,  qui  est  proprius  huic  sacramento.  TJnde  dicimus,  quod 
corpus  Christi  est  in  diversis  altaribus,  non  sicut  in  diversis  locis,  sed  sicut  in 
sacramento :  per  quod  non  intelligimus  quod  Christus  sit  ibi  solum  sicut  in  signo, 
licet  sacramentum  sit  in  genere  signi ;  sed  intelligimus,  corpus  Christi  hie  esse, 
sicut  dictum  est  (in  corp.  art.)  secundum  modum  proprium  huic  sacramento." 

Quaest.  75,  art.  4.  "  Utrum  panis  possit  converto  in  Corpus  Christi." 

" haec  conversio  non  est  formalis,  sed  substantialis ;  nee  con- 

tinetur  inter  species  motus  naturalis,  sed  proprio  nomine  potest  dici  transub- 
stantiatio." 

Queest.  76,  art.  5.  "  Utrum  Corpus  Christi  sit  in  hoe  sacramento.  sicut  in  loco." 

"  Respondeo  dicendum,  quod  sicut  jam  dictum  est  (art.  3,  hu.  qusest.)f  Corpus 
Christi  non  est  in  sacramento  secundum  proprium  modum  quantitatis  dimen- 
sivse,  sed  magis  secundum  modum  substantiae.  Omne  autem  corpus  locatum 
est  in  loco  secundum  modum  quantitatis  dimensivae,  inquantum  scilicet  commen- 
suratur loco  secundum  suam  quantitatem  dimensivam.  IJnde  relinquitur  quod 
Corpus  Christi  non  est  in  hoc  sacramento  sicut  in  loco  sed  per  modum  substanti® 
eo  scilicet  modo  quo  substantia  continetur  a  dimensionibus :  succedit  enim  sub- 
t  "  Praeterea.  Sicut  dictum  est  (art.  praec.  and  Art.  3.  hu.  quaest.)  in  sacramento  est  Corpus 
Christi  cum  sua  quantitate  dimensiva,  et  cum  omnibus  suis  accidentibus.  Sed  esse  in  loco 
est  accidens  corporis  :  unde  et  ibi  connume"ratur  inter  novem  genera  accidentium.  Ergo 
Corpus  Christi  est  in  hoc  sacramento  localiter." 


116 

most  Priests  then — which  must  have  been  well  known  to 
Knox,  trained,  as  he  was,  in  the  disputations  of  the  School- 
men :  therefore  (when  the  Declaration  embodied  this  state- 
ment, and  said,  "it  is  against  the  trueth  of  Christes  true 
naturall  bodye,  to  be  in  more  places  then  in  one  at  one  tyme") 
the  Catholic  and  the  Protestant  party  would  probably  alike 
rejoice  that  they  were  bidden  to  defend  the  Church  of 
England's  view,  as  against  the  Papal  party,  by  an  appeal  to 
such  a  witness  as  St.  Thomas  Aquinas,  who  had  said  that  "in 
no  manner  is  the  Body  of  Christ  in  this  Sacrament  locally." 

Once   more  :   did  any  dread  lest  this  new   command  ta 
'•  deliver "  the  Sacrament  "to  the  people  in   their  hands, 
kneeling"  (an  order  needless  when  the  1st  Book  was  pre- 
pared,  as  then  neither   Clergy  nor  Laity  presumed  to  do 
otherwise)   should    contribute   to    that   very    danger  which 
Cranmer  apprehended  from  the  Trent   "decrees  respecting 
the  worship  of  the  host/'   how  was  their  alarm  subdued  ? 
The  Archbishop  made  no  attempt  to  disguise  a  posture  which, 
when  employed  in  Public  Worship,  all  knew  to  imply  no 
less  honour  than  that  due  to  the  Unseen  though  Present  God  : 
indeed   he   had    himself  pointed  out   in  his  Letter   to   the 
Council  that  "  the  people  praying  and  geavinge   thanckes, 
do  kneele"   in   the   "  two  praiers   wch  go  before,"   and  the 
"two"  which    "  ymmediatlie   followe"  the    "receavinge   of 
the  Sacrament" ;  and,  moreover,  he  had  expressly  defended 
kneeling,  in  the  sfct   of   reception,  on  the  ground,  that  to 
abstain  from  it  then  "should  rather  import  a  contemptuouse 
then  a  reverent  receavinge  of  the  Sacrament" — words  which 
surely  can  have  but  one  natural  meaning,  viz.,  that  such  a 
change  of  posture  would,  at  the  least,  be  equivalent  to  a 
verbal  denial  of  that  Divine  Presence    at  that  time  which 

etantia  Corporis  Christi  in  hoc  sacramento  substantise  panis:  unde  sicut  sub~ 
stantia  panis  non  erat  sub  suis  dimensionibus  local iter ;  sed  per  modum  substantiae, 
ita  nee  substantia  Corporis  Christi.  Non  tamen  substantia  Corporis  Christi  est 
subjeetum  illarum  dimensioning  sicut  erat  substantia  panis :  et  ideo  substantia 
panis  ratione  suarum  dimensionum  loealiter  erat  ibi,  quia  comparabatur  ad  locum 
ilium  mediantibus  propriis  dimensionibus;  substantia  autem  Corporis  Christi 
comparatur  ad  locum  ilium  mediantibus  dimensionibus  alienis  ;  ita  quod  e  con- 
yerso  dimensiones  proprise  Corporis  Christi  comparantur  ad  locum  ilium  medi- 
ante  substantia;  quod  est  contra  rationem  corporis  locali.  Unde  nullo  m'odo 
Corpus  Christi  est  in  hoc  sacramento  localiter." 


117 

was  attested  to  be  there,  immediately  before  and  directly  after, 
by  the  customary  (and  uncomplained  of)  act  of  kneeling.* 
But  while  maintaining  this  (and  therefore  necessarily  holding 
that  in  whatever  way  Christ  was  present  in  the  Sacrament, 
external  worship  was  due  to  Him  therein)  the  Primate  had 
concurred  in  the  4th  paragraph  of  the  XXI  Xth  Article  which 
taught  that  "  The  Sacrament  [Sacramentum)  of  the  Lordes 
Supper  was  not  commaunded  by  Christes  ordinaunce  to  be 
....  worshipped  [adorabatur]  " — language  this  which  most 
charitably  and  carefully  avoids  passing  judgment  upon  those 
who,  upon  their  view  of  the  Sacramentum  being  only  the 
accidents  and  not  the  substance  of  bread  and  wine,  adopted 
a  different  conclusion.  Here,  too,  then,  was  a  warrant  for 
anticipating  the  objection  by  saying  in  the  Declaration  (at 
no  real  risk  of  offending  other  Churches)  that  "  the  Sacra- 

*  While  I  am  engaged  upon  this  sheet  the  Bishop  of  St.  Andrew's  publishes 
his  "  Opinion  on  the  Appeal  of  the  Rev.  P.  Cheyne,  delivered  at  the  Episcopal 
Synod  holden  at  Edinburgh,  Nov.  4,  1858.''  As  this  is  the  "  opinion"  of  the 
majority  of  that  Synod  (for  the  Bishops  of  Glasgow  and  Moray  expressed  their 
entire  concurrence  in  it)  it  becomes  the  more  important  to  notice  a  remark 
therein  touching  this  act  of  Kneeling  which  the  Declaration  defends,  especially 
as  among  the  three  "  passages  more  particularly  objected  to",  and  which  the 
Bp.  of  St.  Andrew's  expressed  his  earnest  hope  that  Mr.  Cheyne  would  "  not 
refuse  to  recall  .  .  .  and  express  his  regret  for,"  was  this :  "  2.  When  he  [the 
appellant]  further  declares  that  in  the  Lord's  Supper  '  we  kneel  to  the  Lord 
Himself,  invisibly  present  under  the  form,'  or  '  under  the  veils  of  bread  and 
wine.'  "  (p.  36.) 

One  argument  advanced  for  this  judicial  request  occurs  at  p.  29  where  the 
Bishop  says  — "To  order  us  to  kneel  in  grateful  acknowledgment  of  benefits 
received — those  benefits  being  the  Sacramental  Body  and  Blood  of  our  Lord  and 
Saviour,  Jesus  Christ— this  is  natural,  this  we  can  understand.  But  in  the 
actual,  substantial  Presence  of  Christ  Himself,  both  God  and  man,  we  should 
expect  to  be  directed  to  fall  down  and  worship,  not  solely  nor  chiefly  out  of 
gratitude,  but  from  those  simpler  motives  of  reverence  and  awe,  which  lie  at 
the  foundation  of  all  the  Divine  honour  which  we  pay  to  Almighty  God." 

Here  the  Bishop  denies  that  the  "  REVERENCE"  due  to  God  was  a  motive  for" 
ordering  the  communicant  to  kneel  when  he  received  the  Holy  Sacrament :  but 
Cranmer's  Letter  appears  plainly  to  teach  the  very  reverse  of  this;  he  uses 
the  precise  word  "  REVERENT"  as  the  equivalent  of  that  "XNEELINGE"  posture 
used  by  "  the  people  praying  and  geavinge  thanckes"  immediately  before  and 
directly  after  the  act  of  receiving ;  therefore  when  he  argues  that  not  to  kneel 
at  that  time  "  should  rather  importe  a  contemptuouse  then  a  reverent  receavinge 
of  the  Sacrament,"  he  could  surely  mean  nothing  less  than  that  to  omit  at  such 
a  moment  the  recognized  posture  of  WORSHIP  would  be  to  withhold  then  that 
"  Divine  honour,"  proceeding  from  "motives  of  reverence  and  awe,"  which,  the 
instant  before  and  the  instant  after,  they  did  not  refuse  as  due  to  the  Presence 
of  God  :  in  fact,  while  not  touching  upon  the  question  of  the  Real  Presence  in 
the  Sacrament,  he  points  out  the  more  than  inconsistency  of  doing  homage  to 
God  as  present  in  devotions  at  the  Sacrament,  and  refusing  the  like  homage  when 
partaking  of  "  the  Sacrament"  itself. 


118 

mentall  bread  and  wyne  .  .  .  may  not  bee  adored,  for  thai 
were  Idolatry  to  be  abhorred  of  all  faithful  Christians." 

This  comparison  of  the  Article  and  the  Declaration  seems 
to  leave  no  reasonable  doubt  whence  the  language  was  derived 
of  this  explanation  of  the  Rubric  on  Kneeling  which  the 
Archbishop  and  his  co-advisers  deemed  it  desirable  to  pub- 
lish. And  the  consideration  that  it  was,  evidently,  drawn 
from  a  Doctrinal  Formulary  which  was  about  to  be  imposed 
upon  the  Clergy,  suggests  that  such  a  source  would  be,  at 
once,  a  warrant  for  the  acceptance  of  the  Declaration  itself 
and  a  guarantee  that  it  contained  nothing  contrary  to  Catho- 
lic belief.  For,  when  we  recollect  that  the  Articles  of  1552 
had  undergone  the  criticism  of  the  Prelates,  and,  as  there 
are  good  grounds  for  believing,  of  the  Convocation  also ; 
it  is  extremely  unlikely,  considering  how  many  of  these 
revisers  (though  not  insensible  of  prevalent  corruptions) 
were  jealous  of  changes  in  the  accustomed  Theological  lan- 
guage, that  they  would  have  assented  to  Definitions  which 
were  opposed  to  really  ancient  doctrine ;  and  their  watchful- 
ness must  naturally  have  resulted  in  part  from  the  known 
views  and  tendency  of  some  Bishops  and  leading  Divines 
and  from  the  operating  influences  of  the  foreign  Reformers. 

Mr.  Hardwick,  speaking  of  the  preparation  of  these 
Articles,  has  observed : — 

"...  that  the  original  draft  of  this  document  was  made  by 
Archbishop  Cranmer,  and  by  him  submitted  to  a  number  of  revisions 
during  an  interval  of  eighteen  months.  In  what  particulars  it  was 
modified  or  augmented  by  this  long  and  varied  criticism  we  are 
unable  to  ascertain  precisely  ;  and  yet  the  letter  of  the  King  to 
Ridley,  bearing  date  June  9,  1553,  as  well  as  that  of  the  Archbishop 
to  Cecil  in  the  previous  September,  would  lead  us  to  suppose  that 
the  amount  of  alteration  had  been  very  considerable  ;  for  it  describes 
the  Articles,  which  were  then  publishing  in  their  final  form,  as 
'  devised  and  gathered  with  great  study,  and  by  counsel  and  good 
advice  of  the  greatest  learned  part  of  our  Bishops  of  this  realm  and 
sundry  others  of  our  Clergy.1  (Strype,  Eccl.  Mem.  ii.  421.)  We 
cannot,  therefore,  resist  the  conclusion,  that  they  had  been  exposed 
to  a  searching  review,  and  freely  discussed  and  amended  by  a  num- 
ber of  auxiliary  hands,  before  the  date  of  their  general  circulation." 
— Hist,  of  the  Articles,  p.  83. 


119 

The  "Visitation  Book"  of  Bishop  Hooper,  1551-2  fur- 
nishes a  body  of  Articles  which  he  endeavoured  to  enforce 
in  his  own  Diocese  prior  to  the  promulgation  of  the  42 
Articles  by  Royal  Authority  in  1553 :  Hooper  seems  to  have 
drawn  them  mainly  from  those  which  the  Archbishop  sent 
out  for  review,  though  they  were  apparently  adapted  to  the 
Bishop's  own  doctrinal  notions :  perhaps  some  of  the  other 
Prelates  took  a  similar  course :  a  comparison  of  the  two  sets 
of  Articles  serves  to  illustrate  the  jealous  caution,  just 
referred  to,  which  determined  the  ultimate  choice  of  phrase- 
ology. The  XXIXth  Article  is  that  with  which  I  am  alone 
concerned  here:  it  so  far  corresponds  with  Hooper's  Xth 
Article  as  to  deny  plainly  the  doctrine  of  Transubstantiation, 
but  it  is  much  more  guarded  in  treating  of  the  Presence  ;  it 
contents  itself  with  saying  that  "  a  faithful  man  ought  not 
either  to  believe  or  openlie  to  confesse  the  reall,  and  bodilie 
presence  (as  thei  terme  it)  of  Christe's  fleshe,  and  bloude, 
in  the  Sacramente  of  the  Lorde's  Supper,"  whereas  Hooper's 
Article  denies  "  any  manner  of  corporal  or  local  presence  of 
Christ,  in,  under,  or  with  the  bread  and  wine."  These  words 
need  not  perhaps  (as  I  have  supposed  at  p.  30)  mean  more 
than  the  rejection  of  a  carnal  and  natural  presence,  but 
(apart  from  the  fact  that  Hooper  also  speaks  of  what  we 
receive  as  being  "  the  confirmation  and  augmentation  of  all 
the  merits  and  deservings  of  Christ)  obviously  they  are 
sufficiently  open  to  misconstruction,  to  have  presented  a  for- 
midable obstacle  to  the  general  acceptance  of  the  XXIXth 
Article,  had  it  been  couched  in  the  same  language. 

Upon  a  careful  consideration,  then,  of  Cranmer's  Letter, 
combined  with  the  illustrations  it  derives  from  the  contem- 
porary circumstances  here  related,  the  conviction  is  strength- 
ened in  my  own  mind — that  the  original  Declaration  was  not 
designed  to  be  more  than  a  denial  of  such  Presence  in  the 
Sacrament  as  was  held,  by  the  maintainers  of  Transubstan- 
tiation,  to  be  the  legitimate . conclusion  from  that  Doctrine; 
though  the  words  "reall  and  essenciall,"  if  taken  in  their 
usual  acceptation  and  irrespective  of  their  controversial 
meaning  in  1552,  seem  to  condemn  a  supernatural  no  less 


120 

than  a  natural  Presence   "  under  the   form  of  Bread  and 
Wine," 

Before  quitting  this  Letter  of  Cranmer's  there  are  two 
other  points  upon  which  it  suggests  observations.  First,  it 
corrects  a  statement  made  by  Dr.  Cardwell  (and  commonly 
adopted)  as  to  the  insertion  of  the  Declaration  on  Kneeling 
in  Edward's  2nd  Book ;  he  says  that  this  "  Rubric  " 

<f  had  been  added  to  the  Communion  Service  by  that  King  on  his 
own  authority  after  the  publication  of  his  second  liturgy  .  .  ," — 
Hist,  of  Conferences,  p.  34. 

But,  if  by  is  meant,  as  would  seem — that  the  Bishops 
were  not  consulted — then  the  Archbishop's  Letter,  by  re- 
citing that  the  King  desired  him  with  others  to  reconsider  the 
Rubric  on  Kneeling,  leads  to  the  inference  that  whatever  was 
done  had  their  concurrence.  The,  then  recognized,  authority 
of  the  King  in  Council  would,  in  Cranmer's  judgment,  warrant 
an  act  which  did  not  contravene  anything  that  the  Parliament 
had  done  in  authorizing  the  Book :  and  as  to  the  Doctrinal 
statement  in  the  Royal  Proclamation  (for  such  it  virtually 
was)  the  Archbishop  had  already  the  authority  of  his  Synod 
for  that,  and  in  fact  had  more  than  a  fortnight  before  (on 
Sept.  19th)  written  to  Mr.  Secretary  Cecil  saying: — 

"  I  have  sent  the  book  of  articles  for  religion  unto  Mr.  Cheke,  set 
in  a  better  order  than  it  was,  and  the  titles  upon  every  matter,  adding 
thereto  that  which  lacked.  I  pray  you  consider  well  the  Articles  with 
Mr.  Checke  ;  and  whether  you  think  best  to  move  the  King's  majesty 
therein  before  my  coming,  I  refer  that  unto  your  two  widoms."— • 
Cranmer's  Remains.  Parker  Society.  Letter  cccv.  p.  439. 

Most  likely  it  is  this  identical  "  book  of  articles/'  in  Latin, 
or  a  corrected  copy  of  it,  signed  by  Knox  and  the  five  other 
Royal  Chaplains,  which  is  still  extant  in  the  State  Paper 
Office,  (Domestic  Edw.  vi.  Vol.  xv.  No.  28)  dated  October 
20th,  1552  :  at  all  events  that  copy  contains  the  29th  Article 
as  cited  in  English,  at  p.  32 ;  and  the  order  to  insert  the  De- 
claration was  not  issued  until  October  27th.  This  fact  there- 
fore confirms  the  conjectures  made  in  pp.  31  and  36. 

Further,  in  a  Note  (Hist,  of  Conf.  p.  34),  Dr.  Cardwell 


121 

"  This  rubric  does  not  appear  in  either  of  the  Editions  printed  by 
Whitchurch  in  1552,  copies  of  which  are  now  in  the  Bodleian ;  but 
it  does  appear  in  each  of  two  editions  by  Grafton,  printed  in  August 
1552,  copies  of  which  may  also  be  seen  in  the  same  library.  The 
act  of  Parliament,  which  ratified  the  second  Service-book,  was  passed 
in  April  1552;  and  the  order  of  Council  requiring  the  insertion  of 
the  rubric  bears  date  on  the  27th  of  October,  only  four  days  before 
the  book  was  to  be  generally  used  throughout  the  kingdom.  It  is 
found  accordingly  to  have  been  inserted  by  cancelling  the  leaf,  or 
some  similar  contrivance  ;  and  the  issuing  of  this  order  is  a  strong 
evidence  of  the  alarm  in  which  Cranmer  and  the  Council  were  held 
on  the  subject  of  the  real  presence,  even  after  the  great  alteration 
they  had  made  respecting  it  in  the  service  of  the  Communion." 

Upon  this  I  would  remark  (1.)  that  the  copies  of  the 
Whitchurch  editions  which  Dr.  Cardwell  mentions,  may 
likely  enough  have  got  into  circulation  before  the  order  of 
Sept.  27th  s(  came  to  Grafton  the  printer  in  any  wise  to  stay 
from  uttering  any  of  the  books  of  the  new  service."  Mr. 
Pickering's  reprint  is,  however,  from  one  by  Whitchurch  of 
1552  and  contains  the  Declaration :  and  there  is  in  the 
British  Museum  (468.  a.  7.)  an  old  copy  of  the  Whytchurche 
Book,  with  the  Declaration  :  it  is  printed  on  a  separate  leaf, 
and  follows  the  Rubrics  at  the  end  of  the  Communion  Office. 
But  indeed,  as  the  Editor  of  the  Parker  Society's  edition  of 
the  Two  Liturgies  observes,  "  Several  copies  are  without  it" 
of  Grafton's  edition  :  though  there  are  two  copies  containing 
it  in  the  British  Museum,  both  evidently  the  same  Ed.  1552 ; 
one  imperfect,  viz.  (468.  a.  6.)  where  it  occurs  at  fol.  97 
(clearly  a  misprint  for  102  as  it  occurs  between  101  and  103) ; 
the  other  perfect  (468.  b.  6.)  has  it  on  p.  102;  in  both  copies 
it  is  found  between  the  Rubric,  beginning,  "  And  if  there  be 
not  above  XX  persons  in  the  Parish,"  &c.,  and  that  com- 
mencing "  And  to  take  awaye  the  superstition  which  any  per- 
son hath,  or  might  have,  in  the  bread  and  wine,"  &c. 

2.  With  regard  to  Dr.  Cardwell's  remark  that  the  Order  in 
Council  is  evidence  of  the  "  alarm  in  which  Cranmer  and  the 
Council  were  held  on  the  subject  of  the  Real  Presence,"  I 
must,  with  all  respect  to  so  great  an  authority,  profess  my 
total  inability  to  discover  any  grounds  for  his  opinion.  At 
pp.  35  and  36  I  had  sketched  what  I  conjectured  to  be  the 


real  history  of  this  Declaration  :  Cranmer's  Letter  to  the 
Council,  now  produced,  entirely  supports  that  view :  and 
certainly  the  tone  of  that  Letter  indicates  anything  but 
"  alarm  :"  it  implies  a  settled  conviction  in  the  Archbishop's 
mind  of  the  Doctrine  to  be  maintained  and  indicates  a  reso- 
lution to  maintain  it — nay,  it  affirms  that,  so  far  as  a  prescribed 
act  sustained  the  Doctrine,  it  had  been  «  with  just  ballance 
waied  "  by  himself  and  "  a  greate  menny  bushops  and  other  of 
the  best  learned  "  men  "  at  the  makinge  of  the  boke."  The 
Declaration  to  which  he  now  assented — probably  prepared — 
was  the  deliberate  judgment  of  the  Church  of  England  by 
representation,  and  no  suddenly  extemporized  statement  to 
meet  a  supposed  new  phase  of  a  state  of  terror. 

(3.)  For  the  reasons  already  assigned  at  pp.  33  to  35  and 
elsewhere,  I  must  venture  to  deny  that  there  was  any>  much 
less  (( any  great  alteration,"  on  the  "  subject  of  the  real 
presence,"  in  the  Prayer  Book  of  1552. 

The  Second  remaining  point  which  the  Archbishop's  Letter 
leads  me  to  notice  is  this, — That  the  way  in  which  he  regards 
"  kneelinge"  as  the  synonym  for  reverence  may  fairly  suggest 
the  true  interpretation  to  be  put  upon  the  Rubric,  in  the 
present  Communion  Office,  which  directs  that  * "  if  any 

*  At  p.  89,  I  have  ventured  to  reject  the  opinion  held  by  some — that  the 
earlier  part  of  this  Rubric,  as  it  stood  in  the  Book  of  1552  ("  if  any  of  the  bread 
and  wine  remain,  the  Curate  shall  have  it  to  his  own  use")  referred  to  the 
consecrated  Bread  and  Wine.  It  was  not  until  long  after  those  remarks  were 
printed  off  that  I  noticed  the  following  passages  in  Bp.  Cosin's  Notes  on  the 
Common  Prayer,  which,  it  will  be  seen,  entirely  support  the  opinion  I  had 
formed : — 

1st  Series,  p.  130  Cosin's  Works,  Ang.  Ca&.  Lib. — "And  if  any  of  the  bread 
and  wine  remain,  $c.~]  Which  is  not  to  be  understood  of  the  bread  and  wine 
already  consecrated,  but  of  that  which  remains  without  consecration  ;  for  else  it 
were  but  a  profanation  of  the  Holy  Sacrament  to  let  the  Curate  have  it  home 
to  his  own  use.  Qitam  indigne  faciunt,  qui  hac  rubrica  ad  tantttm  f acinus  excu- 
sandum  abutuntur,  ipsi  viderint.  It  was  Nestorianism  once  to  think,  that  the 
consecrated  bread,  if  it  were  kept  w  crastinum,  became  common  bread  again,  if 
St.  Thorn,  p.  3,  q.  72,  a.  11,  ad  2,  («)  quoteth  St.  Cyril  of  Alexandria  right,  Up. 
ad  Calen.  Tide  Maldon,  de  Sacram.  p.  120.  'There  was  order  taken  for  it  of 

(a)  "  [This  reference  is  incorrect.  The  pastage  intended  is  in  S.  Thorn.  Aquinas,  Sumraa 
Totius  Theologiae,  pars.  iii.  quaest.  76,  art.  6,  ad  secundum,  where  he  speaks  of '  quidam 
ponentes  quod  Corpus  Christi  non  remaneat  sub  hoc  Sacramento,  si  in  crastiuum  reservetur. 
Contra  quos  Cyrillus  dicit.'etc.  The  same  passage  of  S.  Cyril  is  cited  by  him  in  the  Aurea 
Catena  on  S.  Luc.  c.  xxii.  with  the  reference  Ep.  ad  Calosyr.  'Insaniunt  quidam  dicentes 
mysticam  benedictionem  cessare  a  sanctificatiohe,  si  quae  ejus  reliquiae  remanserint  in  diem 
subsequentim :  non  enim  mutatur  sacratum  Corpus  Christi,  sed  virtus  benedictionis  et 
vivificativa  gratia  jugis  in  eo  est.'  The  Greek  was  found  by  Cardinal  Mai  in  the  Vatican  MS. 
which  contains  S.  Cyril's  Commentary  on  S.  Luke,  and  it  is  printed  by  him  in  the  Classici 
Auctores,  torn.  x.  p.  375,  note  ....  ]  "—Editor's  Note. 


123 

remain  of  that  [Bread  and  Wine]  which  was  consecrated,  it 
shall  not  be  carried  out  of  the  Church,  but  the  Priest  and  such 
other  of  the  Communicants  as  he  shall  then  call  unto  him, 
shall,  immediately  after  the  Blessing,  reverently  eat  and 
drink  the  same." 

In  Edward's  2nd  Prayer  Book  (as  indeed  in  the  1st)  no 
direction  whatever  was  given  for  the  disposal  of  the  remaining 
Consecrated  Bread  and  Wine ;  the  reasons  are  obvious,  viz. 
(1)  That,  owing  to  the  notice  then  practically  as  well  as 
Rubrically  required  from  those  who  proposed  to  communicate, 
not  more  probably  remained  of  what  was  consecrated  than 
could  conveniently  be  consumed  by  the  Celebrant :  (2)  That 
it  must  have  been  wholly  unnecessary  to  prescribe  a  rule 
on  this  point  for  a  body  of  Clergy  who  had  been  accustomed 
to  follow  those  careful  directions  of  the  old  Office  Books 
which  made  even  the  cleansing  of  the  Paten  and  Chalice  a 
part  of  the  Public  Service ;  and  so  (though  they  should  be 
considered  as  needlessly  minute)  guarded  against  a  negligence 
and  carelessness  which  (it  must  be  confessed)  is  too  com- 
monly to  be  found  in  our  own  day  among  Clergy  and  Parish 
Clerks. 

The  similar  absence  of  any  Rubric  in  Elizabeth's  Book 
(1559)  may  be  accounted  for  on  the  like  ground  ;  for,  could 
it  even  be  shown  that  any  general  lax  practice  had  grown  up 
in  the  last  year  of  Edward's  reign,  the  restoration  of  the 
Missal  by  Mary  must  have  corrected  it;  while  the  fact  that 
James's  Book  (1604)  made  no  alteration  in  this  respect,  may 

old  in  the  Church,  which  were  well  to  be  observed  still,  that  No  more 
should  be  brought,  at  least  consecrated  upon  the  altar,  than  would  suffice  to 
communicate  the  people,  and  if  any  remained,  that  the  priests  should  reve- 
rently receive  it.  Tanta  in  altari  holocausta  ojferantur,  quanta  populo  sufficere 
debeant.  Quod  remanserit  (nimirum  ex  holocaustis  et  dementis  consecratis)  non 
servetur  in  crastimm,  sed  cum  timore  et  tremore  clericorum  diligentia  consumetur. 
Clem.  P.  P.  Ep.  2.  de  Consecrat.  distinct.  2.  c.  tribus  gradibus"  (b) 

P.  1 31. — "  To  his  own  use.']  We  read  in  Clemens,  (c]  that  after  the  Communion 
was  done,  the  deacons  took  up  that  which  was  left,  and  carried  it  in  Pastopho- 
rium,  the  room  where  the  priests  were  lodged.  In  Origen,  (rf)  that  it  was  not 

(b)  ["  Ap.  Decretum,  pars  iii.  de  consecratione,  dist.  ii.  c.  23,  apud  Corp.  Jur.  Canon., 
torn.  i.     The  passage  is  taken  out  of  a  spurious  Epistle  of  S.  Clement,  Epist  ii.  ad  Jacobuni 
fratrem  Domini  de  sacratis  vestibus  et  vasis,  printed  in  the  Concilia,  torn.  i.  p.  99,  A.  B.]  " — 
Ed.  Note. 

(c)  "  [ Const.  Apost.  lib.  viii.  c.  13.    Concilia,  torn.  i.  col.  485.  A]  "—Ed.  Note. 

(d)  "  [  . .  .  Origen  in  Levit.  cap.  v.7.  15.)    Horn.  v.  s.  8.    Op.  torn.  ii.  col.  211.  B.]  "— 
Ed.  Note. 


124. 

well  lead  to  the  belief  that,  though  the  objectors  to  kneeling 
at  the  reception  of  the  Sacrament  were  increasing,  no  novel 
practice  as  to  consuming  the  remains  had  crept  in  among  those 
who  adhered  to  and  defended  the  Rubric. 

But  when  the  Scotch  Prayer  Book  was  prepared  in  1636-7 
the  following  Rubric  was  appended  to  the  Communion 
Office : — tf  And  if  any  of  the  Bread  and  Wine  remain,  which 
is  consecrated,  it  shall  be  reverently  eaten  and  drunken  by  such 
of  the  Communicants  only  as  the  Presbyter  which  celebrates 
shall  take  unto  him,  but  it  shall  not  be  carried  out  of  the 
Church."  What  is  the  legitimate  inference  from  this? 
Surely,  that  in. the  preceding  30  years  a  growing  Puritan 
irreverence  in  all  that  concerned  the  ministration  of  the 
Eucharist  had  shown  the  necessity  of  such  a  provision  in  a 
Book  intended  for  use  among  a  people  who  were  deeply 
imbued  with  Knox's  prejudices  against  Kneeling,  and  who 
were  using  his  "  Book  of  Common  Order."  If  it  be  asked 
— why  did  not  Abp.  Laud  then  add  a  similar  Rubric  to 
the  English  Book  ?  the  answer  is  plain — that  Ecclesiastical 
affairs  were  far  too  perilous  at  that  time  in  England  to 
adventure  what  would  certainly  have  been  denounced  as  a 
Popish  innovation. 

kept  till  the  next  day.  In  St.  Jerome,  (e}  that  after  the  Communion,  they 
that  had  eaten  it  in  the  Clmrch  spent  all  thac  remained  of  the  oblations.  In 
Hesychius,  (/)  that  after  the  example  of  the  old  law,  all  that  was  left  was  cast 
into  the  fire.  In  Evagrius,  (^)  that  it  was  an  ancient  custom  at  Constantinople, 
that  if  any  of  the  Sacrament  remained,  young  children  were  called  from  the 
school  to  eat  it  up ;  which  was  retained  in  France,  (A)  as  in  Condi.  Masticon  et 
Turon.,  held  under  Charlemagne."  («)  See  also  Cosin's  other  Notes  quoted  infra. 

So,  too,  Sparrow  (whose  language  I  had  not  before  noticed)  a&ys—"Ifany  of 
the  Bread  and  Wine  remain,  the  Curate  shall  have  it  to  his  own  use.  [Rub.  5.  after 
the  Communion  Service']  that  is,  if  it  were  not  consecrated :  for  if  it  be  conse- 
crated, it  is  all  to  be  spent  with  fear  and  reverence  by  the  Communicants,  in  the 
Church.  Gratian  de  Consecr.  dist.  2.  c.  23.  Tribus  Condi.  Constant.  Resp.  ad.  Qu. 
5.  Monachon.  apud  Balsam.  TheophiL  Akxand.  Cap.  7." — Rationale  p.  241.  Ed. 
1672. 

(e)  "  [In  ecclesia  convenienteg  pblationes  suas  separatim  offerebant,  et  post  commu- 
nionem  qusecunque  eis  de  sacrifices  super  fuissent,  illi  in  eeclesia  communem  ccenam 
comedentes  pariter  consumebant. — Pseudo-Hieron.  in  1  Cor.  xi.  20.  S.  Hieron.  Op.  torn.  xi. 
col.  9,  31,  D.  E.]  "—Ed.  Note. 

(/)  "  [Hesychius  in  Levit.,  lib.  ii.  (in  c.  viii.  32.)  ap.  Bibl.  Patr.  Max.,  torn.  xii.  p.  86. 
C.  Lugd.  1677.]"— Ed.  Note. 

(g)  "  [  .  .  Evagrius,  Hist.  Eccl.,  lib.  iv.  c.  36,  p.  416.]"— Ed.  Note. 

(A)  "  [  .  .  .  Cone.  Masticonense  II.  A.  D.  585.  can.  5,  Concilia,  torn.  vi.  col.  675,  C.D." 
—Ed.  Note. 

(i)  "  [  .  .  •  Con.  Turonense  III.  sub  Carolo  Magno  A.  D.  813,  can.  19;  ibid,  torn,  ix., 
col.  351,  D.]"— Ed.  Note. 


125 

To  this  Rubric  of  the  Scotch  Office  may,  no  doubt,  be 
traced  the  Rubric  inserted  in  the  English  Book  of  1662 : 
nor  need  we  wonder  that  Bishop  Cosin  and  his  co-revisers 
added  this,  when  it  is  recollected  that,  in  addition  to  the 
wide  spreading  Puritanism  of  the  quarter  of  a  century  which 
had  elapsed  since  the  Scotch  Office  was  framed,  the  last  15 
years  of  the  period  had  witnessed  the  total  banishment  of 
the  Prayer  Book  from  the  Public  Services,  and  with  it  had 
abolished  Ritual  and  Ceremonial  practices  which  were  very 
unlikely  to  be  resumed  in  the  absence  of  positive  directions 
to  both  Clergy  and  People. 

Now  it  may  be  safely  assumed,  I  think,  that  had  Arch- 
bishop Cranmer  thought  it  needful  to  give  any  order  for  the 
consumption  of  the  remaining  Consecrated  Elements,  he 
would  have  used  either  the  word  "  reverently  "  or  the  word 
"  kneeling ; "  for,  whether  we  regard  his  views  on  the  Real 
Presence  (see  e.  g.,  p.  22)  or  his  views  on  Consecration  (see 
p.  85),  it  seems  to  me  impossible  to  believe  that  (even  taking 
his  language  in  the  lowest  and  loosest  interpretation  which  has 
been,  wrongly  as  I  think,  put  upon  it)  he  would  have  allowed 
that  NOT  to  be  The  Sacrament  which  was  consumed  after  the 
post-communion  prayers,  though  it  WAS  The  Sacrament  when 
partaken  of  immediately  after  Consecration. 

It  seems  clear,  indeed,  that  the  Archbishop  held — that  the 
Presence  is  in  the  Ministration;  for,  as  he  says,  (see  p.  88) 
"  the  [sacramental]  change  is  in  the  use,  and  not  in  the 
elements  kept  and  reserved,  wherein  is  not  the  perfection  of  a 
Sacrament;"  and  again  (answer  to  Gardiner,  p.  271)  "  he  is  not 
present  in  the  forms  of  bread  and  wine  out*  of  the  ministration:" 
but  then  it  is  essential  to  recollect  that  it  was  wholly  unlikely 
for  Cranmer  (or  indeed  any  Cleric  or  Laic  of  that  day)  to  re- 
gard the  consumption  of  the  remains  of  the  Consecrated 
Elements  as  anything  else  than  a  part  of  the  Ministration :  " 
it  is  difficult  to  understand  that  any  one  who  tries  to  throw 
himself  into  that  period  will  suppose  it  presumptuous  to 
assume  that  no  such  thought  entered  the  minds  of  the 
Churchmen  of  that  time ;  rather  the  wonder  would  surely  be 

*  Which,  surely,  implies  that  he  considered  Christ  was  present  «*  in  the  forms" 
IN  "  the  ministration." 


126 

how  they  could  depart,  except  where  distinctly  ordered,  from 
the  traditional  and  rubrical  theory  and  practice  with  which 
they  had  been  bound  up  so  long. 

Assuming  then,  as  I  do  without  any  doubt,  that  Cranmer  so 
regarded  it ;  the  conclusion  seems  inevitable — that  in  what- 
ever posture  the  Celebrant  or  his  Ministers  or  the  people 
made  their  Communion,  in  that  same  posture  the  Archbishop 
would  have  required  them  to  consume  the  remaining  Con- 
secrated Elements  when  called  upon  to  do  so  :  standing,*  was 

*  Bishop  Cosin  indeed  seems,  at  one  time  at  least,  to  have  thought  other- 
wise; for  in  his  1st  Series  of  Notes,  A.  C.  L.  p.  105,  he  thus  writes — "  Then  the 
Priest  standing  up,  shall  say  the  Prayer  of  Consecration.']  The  transposing  of  this 
after  that  which  goes  before,  otherwise  than  it  was  in  King  Edward's  Book,  hath 
left  the  Priest  to  receive  the  Sacrament  standing,  there  heing  no  Rubric  or 
appointment  to  alter  his  gesture  after  this ;  and  upon  this  have  the  Puritans 
taken  occasion  to  plead,  and  say  that  they  may  as  well  be  left  to  their  liberty 
and  stand  as  the  minister,  when  they  receive.  But  see  the  answer  infra." 

The  ''answer"  to  which  Cosin  seems  to  refer,  is  the  following  Note  p.  112,  1st 
Series—"  Kneeling.]  Kneeling  here,  for  all  the  Puritans'  objection,  (a]  hath 
reference  as  well  to  the  minister  himself,  as  to  the  people  and  other  ministers." 

But  in  this  instance,  as  indeed  in  many  other  cases,  the  Puritans  by  taking  the 
literal  appear  to  have  caught  the  true  interpretation  of  the  Rubric,  though  they 
argued  very  inaccurately  from  it.  The  Rubric,  here  referred  to,  stood  thus  in  the 
Books  of  1552,  1559,  and  1604  :—"  Then  shall  the  Minister first  receive  the  Commu- 
nion in  both  kinds  himself,  and  next  deliver  it  to  other  Ministers  if  any  be  there  present 
(that  they  may  help  the  chief  Minister)  and  after  to  the  people  in  their  hands 
kneeling.1' '  Bishop  Cosin  seems  to  have  thought  that  the  vaiiation  from  the 
order  of  the  1st  Book  (in  placing  the  prayer  of  Access  before  the  act  of  Conse- 
cration) apparently  changed  the  position  of  the  Celebrant  when  communicating 
himself:  but  his  error  probably  arose  from  his  mistaking  the  meaning  of  the 
Rubric  in  the  1st  Book;  that  Rubric,  except  that  it  did  not  contain  the  words, 
*'  in  their  hands  kneeling,"  was  identical  with  the  Rubric  just  quoted,  and  it  is 
surprising  that  Cosin  appears  not  to  have  considered  the  moral  certainty  of  the 
Clergy  of  1549  interpreting  this  Rubric  by  the  practice  which  they  must  have 
pursued  under  "the  Order  of  the  Communion"  of  1548.  That  supplementary 
Office  directed  "The  time  of  the  Communion"  of  the  people  to  "be  immediately 
after  that  the  Priest  hath  received  the  Sacrament,  without  the  varying  of  any  other  rite 
or  ceremony  in  the  Mass  (until  other  order  shall  be  provided)  . .  . ."  then  followed  a 
longer  and  a  shorter  exhortation  similar  to  those  now  used,  the  Confession,  the 
Absolution,  the  Comfortable  Words,  and  the  Prayer  of  Access ;  the  very  next 
Rubric  orders  "  Then  shall  the  Priest  rise,  the  people  still  reverently  kneeling,  and 
the  Priest  shall  deliver  the  Communion,  first  to  the  Ministers,  if  any  be  there  pre- 
sent, that  they  may  be  ready  to  help  the  Priest,  and  after  to  the  other." 

Now  even  if  no  such  directions  had  been  given,  we  may  be  sure  that  the 
Celebrant  would  have  continued  to  communicate  himself  and  the  people,  after  the 
accustomed  manner :  but  when  told  that,  with  certain  variations,  the  Mass  Office 
was  to  be  strictly  followed  in  other  respects,  it  is  clear  that  the  Celebrant  must 
have  received  the  Sacrament  himself  STANDING  ltcum  inclinatione,"  for  that  was 
the  posture  ordered  in  the  Sarum  and  other  Uses  :  no  "  other  order"  had  been 
"  provided,"  in  this  respect,  down  to  the  time  at  which  Cosin  penned  this  Note;  it 
follows,  therefore,  that  the  old  Rule  continued,  even  though  the  traditional  practice 
may  have  been  much  invaded  by  Bishop  Cosin' s  day,  and  so  may  have  likely 
enough  influenced  the  opinion  recorded  in  his  Note. 

(a)  Editor's  Note. — "  ['  The  Priest  is  expressly  directed  in  the  next  rub.  before,  to  stand, 
and  not  directly  to  kneelnow.'— Survey,  Ex.  22.  quaere  57.  p.  70.]"  A.  D.  1606. 


127 

the  posture  of  the  Celebrant;  kneeling,  the  posture  of  all  others 
in  making  their  Communion.  The  Post-communion  con- 
sumption was  just  as  much  a  part  of  "the  use"  and  "the 
ministration  "  of  the  Sacrament  as  what  had  preceded  :  what- 
ever reverence  therefore  Cranmer  held  to  be  due  to  Christ's 
Presence  in  the  earlier  part  of  *'  the  use,"  he  must  necessarily , 
it  would  seem,  have  thought  needful  to  be  rendered  so  long 
as  "  the  Ministration  "  lasted. 

What  that  reverence  was,  we  now  know  distinctly  from  his 

Though,  however,  even  Laud's  Book  of  1638  gave  no  direction  as  to  the  posture 
of  the  Celebrant  when  communicating,  Bishop  Cosin  seems  still  to  have  retained 
his  view  when  he  wrote  his  Suggestions  for  alterations  in  the  Prayer-Book ;  for 
at  p.  517  A.  C.  L.  this  passage  occurs — "58.  In  the  Priest's  taking  of  the  Sacra- 
ment to  himself,  there  is  no  direction  either  for  his  Kneeling  when  he  takes  it,  or 
for  the  words  which  he  is  then  to  say ;  which  is  therefore  needful  here  to  be 
added,  lest  otherwise  some  contentious  minister  might  say,  that  he  is  not 
enjoined  to  Kneel  in  this  holy  action  himself,  nor  to  say  any  words  at  all  when 
he  takes  the  Sacrament." 

Accordingly,  as  the  Editor  of  Cosin's  Notes  states  "  [The  rubrics  were  thus 
prepared  by  Cosin:  'Then  shall  the  priest  that  celebrateth  receive  the  Holy 
Communion  in  both  kinds  upon  his  knees,  and  when  he  taketh  the  Sacrament  of 
the  Body  of  Christ  he  shall  say,  '  The  body  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  which  was 
given  for  me,  preserve  my  body  and  soul  unto  everlasting  life.  Amen.  I  take 
and  eat  this  for  the  remembrance  of  Christ  who  died  for  me,  and  I  feed  on  Him 
in  my  heart  by  faith  with  thanksgiving.'  And  when  he  taketh  the  Sacrament  of 
Christ's  blood  he  shall  say,  '  The  blood  of  onr  Lord,  &c.'  (then  in  San  croft's  hand, 
*  which  was  shed  for  me,  preserve  my  body  and  soul  unto  everlasting  life.  Amen. 
I  drink  this  for  the  remembrance  of  Christ  who  shed  his  blood  for  me,  and  am 
thankful.')  '  Then  shall  he  stand  up  and  proceed  to  deliver  the  Holy  Commu- 
nion first  to  the  ^bishops,  priests,  and  deacons,  if  any  be  present,  in  both  kinds, 
and  after  that  to  the  people  in  due  order,  into  their  hands,  all  humbly  kneeling, 
and  so  continuing  (as  is  most  meet)  at  their  devotions  and  prayers  unto  the  end 
of  the  whole  Communion.']  "  . 

But  this  proposed  Rubric  was  not  adopted  in  the  Revision  of  1 662,  though  it 
is  probable  (see  infra)  that  Cosin's  'Notes,  &c.  (especially  his  "  Suggestions"  ) 
were  before  the  Reviewers  at  that  time ;  Dr.  Niphol's  marginal  note  upon 
Cosin's  Suggestion  is  "  This  seems  to  be  altered,  but  still  the  rubric  is  not  clear 
in  this  point :  "  looking  however  at  the  Rubric  as  it  now  stands,  the  probability 
seems  to  be  that  the  question  having  been  discussed  and  the  old  Office  books 
weighed,  either  Bishop  Cosin  changed  his  opinion  or  was  overruled  b(y  his  co- 
revisers  :  perhaps  there  was  sufficient  difference  of  view  among  them  to  lead  them 
to  adopt  here  the  recommendation  of  the  Royal  Commission  by  making  no 
change.  Anyhow  they  neither  incorporated  the  old  Rubric  directing  the  Priest 
to  stand;  nor  the  Words  ("  The  Body  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,"  &c.)  which  the 
Old  Offices  directed  the  Priest  to  use  when  communicating  himself,  though  no 
form  was  prescribed  for  communicating  the  people.  Clearly,  then,  we  are  free  to 
interpret  the  Priest' &  posture  by  the  analogy  of  the  Old  English  Offices :  while  as 
to  the  words,  probably  the  natural  inclination  of  the  Celebrant  when  receiving 
himself,  is  to  use  either  secretly  or  openly  (with  the  requisite  change)  the 
language  he 's  bidden  to  employ  in  administering  the  Sacrament  to  the  people. 

Nevertheless  the  argument  I  have  used  in  the  text  is  in  no  way  affected  which- 
ever view  may  be  taken  of  the  Rubric :  that  argument  being — that  the  same  pos- 
ture, whatever  it  is,  which  is  used  by  the  Celebrant  or  others  in  making  their 
Communion,  must  be  also  used  in  consuming  the  remains  of  the  Sacrament. 


128 

own  Letter ;  "  Kneelinge,"  he  considered  the  true  external 
expression  of  it  in  the  Church  of  England,  in  common  with 
the  rest  of  Western  Christendom :  to  refuse  this  could  only, 
in  his  mind,  "importe  a  contemptuouse  than  a  reverent  re- 
ceaving  of  the  Sacrament."  Can  it  be  reasonably  supposed 
that  he  would  have  thought  otherwise  of  any  (to  whom  the 
Rubric  on  Kneeling  applied)  who  should  then  have  offered 
to  receive  the  remains  of  the  Sacrament  in  any  other  than  a 
kneeling  posture  ?  I  believe  it  cannot. 

Now  if  this  was  true  of  Cranmer,  how  much  more  must  it 
have  been  true  of  the  last  Revisers  of  the  Prayer  Book !  Cer- 
tain it  is  that  the  Reviewers  of  1662,  to  whom  we  are  in- 
debted for  the  Offices  as  they  now  stand,  could  not  have 
meant  less  by  REVERENCE  than  the  Archbishop  did :  their 
views  (especially  those  e.  g.  of  Sheldon,  Cosin,  Morley, 
Sanderson,  Gauden,  Heylin,  Gunning,  Pearson,  Sparrow, 
and  Thorndike)  undoubtedly  were  not  lower  than  Cranmer's : 
their  experience  of  irreverence  must  have  been  greater  among 
priests  f  as  well  as  people.  In,  what  we  may  be  sure  there- 
fore was,  their  desire  to  promote  due  reverence  among  both, 
they  added  the  following  Rubrics  or  parts  of  Rubrics  as 
being  likely,  in  their  judgment,  to  secure  it : — 

I.  BEFORE  THE  FIRST  LORD'S  PRAYER. — ".  .  .  .  the  people 
kneeling" 

II.  BEFORE  THE  NICENE  CREED. — " .  ...  the  people  all 
standing  up  [at  the  Gospel]  .  ...  the  people  still  standing  [at 
the  Creed]  as  before" 

III.  BEFORE  THE  OFFERTORY  SENTENCES. — "  Then  shall 

the  Priest  return  to  the  Lord's  Table,  and  begin  the  Offertory. 

» 

•  •  •  •  • 

IV.  BEFORE  THE  PRAYER  FOR  CHRIST'S  CHURCH  MILI- 
TANT.— "  Whilst  these  sentences  are  in  reading,  the  Deacons, 
Churchwardens,  or  other  fit  person  appointed  for  that  purpose  t 

f  A  circumstance  not  surprising,  when  we  find  that  so  early  as  1603  it  was 

stated  in  the  Hampton  Court  Conference  that  "  the  vicar  of  Ratesdale, 

by  his  unseemly  and  irreverent  usage  of  the  Eucharist,  dealing  the  bread  out  of  a 
basket,  every  man  putting  in  his  hand  and  taking  out  a  prace,  to  have  made  many 
loath  the  Communion,  and  wholly  refuse  to  come  to  Church." — Barlow's  Account 
in  Card.  Hist.  Corp.  p.  210. 


129 

shall  receive  the  Alms  for  the  poor,  and  other  devotions  of  the 
people,  in  a  decent  bason,  to  be  provided  by  the  Parish  for  that 
purpose;  and  reverently  bring  it  to  the  Priest,  who  shall 
humbly  present  and  place  it  upon  the  holy  Table* 

"And  when  there  is  a  Communion,  the  Priest  shall  then 
place  upon  the  Table  so  much  Bread  and  Wine,  as  he  shall 
think  sufficient." 

V.  BEFORE  THE  FIRST  EXHORTATION. — "  At  the  time  of  the 
Celebration  of  the  Communion,  the   Communicants  being  con- 
veniently placed  for  the  receiving  of  the  holy  Sacrament, . . . . " 

VI.  BEFORE  "!T  is  VERY  MEET,"  etc. — "  Then  shall  the 
Priest  turn  to  the  Lord's  Table,  and  say" 

VII.  BEFORE  THE  PRAYER  OF  CONSECRATION. — "  When 
the  Priest,  standing  before  the  Table,  hath  so  ordered  the  Bread 
and  Wine,  that  he  may  with  the  more  readiness  and  decency 
break  the  Bread  before  the  people,  and  take  the   Cup  into  his 
hands,  he  shall  say  the  Prayer  of  Consecration,  .  .  .  .  " 

VIII.  IN  THE  PRAYER  OF  CONSECRATION. — The  manual 
acts  prescribed,  "  Here  the  Priest  is  to  take  the  Paten"  etc. 

IX.  AFTER   THE  COMMUNION  OF  THE  PEOPLE. — "  If  the 
consecrated  bread  or  wine  be  all  spent  before  all  have  commu- 
nicated ;  the  Priest  is  to  consecrate  more  according  to  the  form 
before  prescribed"  etc. 

"  When  all  have  communicated,  the  Minister  shall  return  to 
the  Lord's  Table,  and  reverently  place  upon  it  what  remaineth 
of  the  consecrated  Elements,  covering  the  same  with  a  fair  linen 
cloth" 

X.  AT  THE  END  OF  THE  OFFICE. — ".  .  .  .  but  if  any  re- 
main of  that  which  was  consecrated,  it  shall  not  be  carried  out 
of  the  Church,  but  the  Priest  and  such  other  of  the  Communi- 
cants as  he  shall  then  call  unto  him,  shall,  immediately  after 
the  Blessing,  reverently  eat  and  drink  the  same" 

Each  of  these  Rubrics,  as  will  be  seen,  was  directed  to  a 
separate  point,  some  (i.  e.,  Nos.  HI.,  IV.,  and  VII.)  brought 
out  more  distinctfy  the  Sacrificial  aspect ;  others  (i.  e.,  Nos. 
VIII.,  IX.,  and  X.,)  impressed  more  clearly  the  doctrine  of 
Consecration:  but  all  combined  in  promoting  one  object, 
viz.,  a  more  careful  and  orderly  celebration  of  the  Holy 


130 

Eucharist  than  had  been  accustomed ;  all  tended  to  invest  that 
Sacrament  with  a  greater  dignity  than  it  seemed  to  possess 
when  Rubrically  shorn  of  some  of  its  Ritual  directions  in  the 
Offices  subsequent  to  Edward's  1st  Book  :  indeed,  in  some 
respects,  the  Rubrics  of  1662  were  fuller  and  more  explicit 
than  those  of  1549  ;  for  the  obvious  reason — that  the  Clergy 
of  Edward's  days,  familiar  as  they  were  with  the  Rules  of  the 
Old  Offices,  had  no  need  of  directions  upon  points  which 
subsequent  negligence  or  prejudice  had  obscured  or  would  be 
likely  to  hide  from  the  view  of  the  Clergy  of  Charles  the 
£nd's  reign,  and  their  successors. 

Moreover,  the  instructions  given  to  the  Commissioners 
were  themselves  calculated  to  favour  this  end ;  for,  in  "  the  King's 
warrant  for  the  Conference  at  the  Savoy"  they  were  directed 
"  to  advise  upon  and  review  the  said  Book  of  Common 
Prayer,  comparing  the  same  with  the  most  ancient  Liturgies 
which  have  been  used  in  the  Church,  in  the  primitive  and 
purest  times."  (Card.  Hist.  Conf.  p.  300) ;  and  if  those  who 
exercised  the  most  influence  in  the  Conference  desired  (as 
there  can  be  no  doubt  they  did)  to  conform  the  Liturgy  to 
the  Ancient  Offices  as  much  as  they  could  consistently  with 
the  King's  direction  to  be  careful  in  "  avoiding,  as  much  as 
may  be,  all  unnecessary  alterations  of  the  forms  and  Liturgy 
wherewith  the  people  are  already  acquainted,  and  have  so 
long  received  in  the  Church  of  England"  (ibid),  there  can  be 
no  question  in  what  direction  they  must  have  been  led :  it 
would  require  no  very  extensive  search  among  those  ancient 
monuments  of  Eucharistic  Doctrine  and  Ritual  before  they 
saw  that  whatever  changes  or  additions  they  made  in  the 
Book  under  review  must  be  of  a  nature  to  surround  and  pene- 
trate the  Communion  Office  with  protections  and  defences 
against  Puritanical  assaults  and  betrayals. 

Itfollows,  therefore,  that  any  uncertainty  which  may  now  arise 
as  to  the  construction  of  expressions,  whether  in  the  Rubrics 
or  in  the  Substance  of  the  Communion  Office,  can  only  be 
fairly  and  safely  removed  by  a  reference  to  those  same  Ancient 
Liturgies  which  were  so  distinctly  and  authoritatively  com- 
mended to  and  employed  by  the  Savoy  Commissioners :  the 


131 

analogy  of  those  Liturgies  (including  the  old  English  Uses 
which  the  Reviewers  could  not  but  have  regarded  as  the 
Church  of  England's  traditional  exposition  of  the  Ancient 
Liturgies)  must  be  followed  in  interpreting  the  language  of 
the  present  English  Liturgy  if  we  at  all  wish  to  comprehend 
its  letter  and  its  spirit. 

The  word  "  reverently,"  now  under  discussion,  occurs  in 
three  of  the  Rubrics  just  quoted,  viz  :  Nos.  IV,  IX,  and 
X ;  an  examination  and  comparison  of  these  will  probably 
materially  help  to  define  the  meaning  of  the  term  as  used  in 
No.  X. — the  Rubric  now  under  consideration. 

Rubric  No.  IV  prescribes  the  mode  of  collecting  and  pre- 
senting the  various  Offerings  of  the  people:  the  cor- 
responding Rubric  in  the  Books  of  1549  to  1604  made  a  dis- 
tinction in  the  method  of  receiving  them.  "  The  devotion  of 
the  people  "  was  put  "  into  the  poor  men's  box  "  either  by  the 
people  themselves  (as  in  the  Book  of  1549),  or  by  "the 
Churchwardens,  or  some  other  "  who  had  gathered  it :  "  the 
due  and  accustomed  Offerings"  were  to  be  paid  "to  the 
Curate"  by  "every  man  and  woman"  on  "the  offering  days 
appointed."  But  the  Rubric  of  1662  made  no  such  dif- 
ference ;  by  that  "  the  Alms  for  the  poor,  and  other  devotions 
of  the  people '  were  alike  to  be  collected  by  "  the  Deacons, 
Churchwardens,  or  other  fit  person  appointed  for  that  pur- 
pose," who  were  to  "  reverently  bring  it  to  the  priest :  "  con- 
siderations of  convenience  no  doubt  led  to  this  change :  the 
point  however  here  to  be  observed  is  the  act  intended  by  the 
word  "reverently:  "  I  understand  it  to  mean  "Kneeling;" 
this  belief  is  confirmed  by  the  fact — that  Bishop  Cosin  so  ex- 
plained the  Rubric  of  1604  in  his  1st  Series  of  Notes  where 
(p.  97  A.  C.  L.)  he  says,  quoting  Bishop  Andrewes — 

"  And  upon  the  offering  days  appointed,  every  man  and  woman 
shall  pay  to  the  Curate  the  due  and  accustomed  offerings.']  .  ?  .  W.  ? 
*  They  should  not  pay  it  to  the  curate  alone,  but  to  God  upon  the 
altar  ;  from  whence  the  curate  hath  his  warrant  to  take  it,  as 
deputed  by  Him,  and  as  the  Apostle  plainly  alludes,  1  Cor.  ix.  13, 
14  ;  Heb.  xiii.  10.  And  this  is  not  to  be  forgotten,  though  it  be 
foregone,  that  whosoever  gave  any  lands  or  endowments  to  the  ser- 
vice of  God,  he  gave  it  in  formal  writing,  (as  now-a-days  between 


132 

man  and  man)  sealed  and  witnessed.     And  the  tender  of  the  gift 
was  super-altare,  and  by  the  donor  upon  his  knees." 

Again,  in  his  2nd  Series,  p.  323,  Bishop  Cosin  says : — 

"  And  upon  the  Offering-days  appointed."]  It  was  one  of  the  in- 
structions set  forth  by  the  authority  of  King  Henry  VIII.  in  the 
Convocation  of  his  clergy,  anno  1536,  to  be  generally  observed  in 
the  Church  of  England,  '  That  the  feasts  of  the  Nativity  of  our  Lord, 
of  Easter  Day,  of  the  Nativity  of  St.  John  Baptist,  and  of  St.  Michael 
the  Archangel,  shall  be  accounted,  accepted,  and  taken  for  the  four 
general  Offering-days.'  Which  order  is  in  some  places  among  us 
still  observed.  And  the  King  or  Queen  in  their  Chapel-royal  (or 
wherever  they  be  at  Church  in  those  days)  never  omit  it,  but  arise 
from  their  seat,  and  go  in  solemn  manner  to  present  their  Offerings 
upon  their  Knees  at  God's  altar.  And  then  is  read  by  the  Priest  or 
Bishop  attending,  this  sentence  here  prescribed,  1  Cor.  ix. :  *  They 
which  minister  about  holy  things,'  etc " 

Now  if,  as  is  implied  in  these  two  passages,  Kneeling  is 
the  proper  posture  in  which  individuals  should  present  their 
offerings ;  it  seems  to  follow  that,  when  those  Offerings  are 
presented  for  them  by  another,  their  representative  should 
also  Kneel :  *  in  the  absence  therefore  of  any  direct  evidence 
to  show  the  precise  intention  of  the  Reviewers  of  1662,  it  is 
a  very  reasonable  supposition  that  the  introduction  of  the 
word  "  reverently  "  into  the  Rubric,  as  then  altered,  had  some 
reference  to  these  opinions  of  Bishops  Andrewes  and  Cosin  ; 
especially  as  Bishop  Kennett  (Register  p.  566)  has  this  Note: 

"  Several  Books  and  Papers,  supposed  to  be  laid  before  the  Con- 
vocation while  they  were  on  this  work  of  revising  the  Common 
Prayer. 

"  The  Collections  of  Bishop  Overall. 

"  The  Notes  of  Bishop  Cosins, 

"  And  his  additional  notes  in  Latin. 

"  Notes  of  Bishop  Andrewes.'' 

*  I  have  since  met  with  the  following  passage  in  Jebh's  Choral  Service,  p. 
497  :  — "  According  to  regular  Collegiate  usage,  the  Clergy  present  their  Alms 
severally  themselves,  kneeling  in  front  of  the  Altar  while  making  their  offering. 
This  custom  is,  I  believe,  unknown  in  Ireland,  but  it  is  one  so  reverential,  and 
one  which  so  distinctly  exhibits  the  holy  nature  of  almsgiving,  and  the  purposes 
of  God's  Altar,  that  its  revival  were  much  to  be  wished.  In  some  Colleges,  all 
the  lay  members  advance  to  the  Altar  rails,  and  then  offer,  one  by  one. 

"A  reverential  mode  of  presenting  the  Alms  'offered  to'  God's  'Divine 
Majesty,'  is  distinctly  prescribed  by  the  Rubric.  Many  interpret  this  to  mean 
Kneeling ;  and  certainly  the  traditional  practice  of  the  Church,  in  the  custom 
noticed  in  the  last  paragraph,  would  seem  to  justify  the  same  posture  in  present- 
ing the  devotions  of  the  people  at  large  which  was  observed  with  respect  to  those 
of  individuals." 


133 

And  that  such  a  meaning  was  designed,  appears  to  be  fur- 
ther indicated  by  the  other  word"  humbly,"  which  is  employed 
to  describe  the  posture  of  "  the  Priest,"  when  he  has  to 
"  present"  the  Offerings  thus  "reverently"  brought  to  him. 
That  a  different  posture  was  intended,  is,  I  think,  clear  from 
the  use  of  an  expression  which,  though  kindred  in  character, 
is  not  synonymous  with  "  reverently  " — the  latter  word  im- 
plying (even  according  to  the  Dictionaries)  more  respect, 
veneration,  and  awe.  Besides  (recollecting  the  principles  which 
guided  the  Reviewers)  we  cannot  reasonably  suppose  that  this 
choice  of  terms  was  made  without  reference  to  the  directions 
of  the  old  Offices;  and  in  them  there  is  nothing  to  indicate 
that  kneeling  was  the  Celebrant's  posture  when  presenting 
Alms  and  Oblations,  but  quite  the  reverse :  no  direc- 
tion indeed  is  given  except  as  regards  the  Oblations 
of  Bread  and  Wine ;  these,  according  to  the  Sarum  and 
Bangor  rubric,  he  is  to  place  "  diligent er"  (i.  e.,  carefully, 
attentively)  "  super  medium  altare"  and  then  (t  inclinato 
parumper  elevet  calicem  utraque  manu  offerens  sacrifcium 
Domino,....  :"  but,  plainly,  no  other  offerings  would  be 
made  with  more  devotion  than  those  which  were  presented  for 
the  express  purpose  of  being  consecrated  for  the  Sacrament, 
and  that  this  principle  is  meant  to  be  retained  now,  may  be 
clearly  understood  from  the  Rubric  in  our  present  Prayer 
Book,  which  merely  bids  the  Priest  to  "place  upon  the  Table 
so  much  Bread  and  Wine  as  he  shall  think  sufficient.'9 

Moreover,  it  is  important  to  remember  that  the  act  of  pre- 
senting and  placing  upon  the  Altar,  either  the  Offertory  or 
the  Elements  is  not  the  Priest's  formal  oblation  of  them,  in 
our  present  Office,  though  the  act  of  bringing  the  Offerings 
of  the  people  to  the  Priest  is  their  formal  oblation :  it  is 
easy,  therefore,  to  see  why  only  the  word  "  humbly  "  (equi- 
valent to  the  "  diligenter  "  of  the  Sarum  and  Bangor  Rites  ) 
is  used  to  prescribe  the  Priest's  act,  though  the  stronger  term 
"reverently"  prescribes  the  act  of  the  people's  representative. 
Indeed,  some  evidence  of  the  intention  in  this  choice  of 
terms  is  apparently  furnished  by  a  comparison  of  this  Rubric 
as  it  stood  in  Laud's  book  of  1637,  where  it  reads  "shall 


134 

humbly  present  it  before  the  Lord  and  set  it  upon  the  holy 
Table.  And  the  Presbyter  shall  then  offer  up  and  place  the 
bread  and  wine  prepared  for  the  Sacrament  upon  the  Lord's 
Table  :  "  the  words  which  I  have  italicized  not  being  incor- 
porated with  the  Rubric  of  1662.  The  Priest's  formal  obla- 
tion of  the  Offerings  is  made  in  the  Church  Militant  prayer 
by  the  use  of  the  words,  "  We  humbly  beseech  Thee  most 
mercifully  [to  accept  our  alms  and  oblations,  ..]...  which 
we  offer  unto  thy  Divine  Majesty ;  "  and  at  that  Prayer 
standing  is  plainly  the  posture  of  the  Celebrant — with  an  in- 
clination of  his  body,  according  to  the  above  Rubric  of  the 
old  Offices. 

These  considerations  go  very  far,  I  think,  towards  proving 
that  whoever  presents  the  Offerings  of  the  people  to  the 
Celebrant  is  to  do  so  KNEELING  ;  but  that  the  Celebrant 
when  presenting  them  on  the  Altar  is  to  do  so  STANDING. 

Rubric  No.  IX  prescribes  the  mode  in  which  the  Celebrant 
is  to  return  to  the  Altar  "  what  remaineth  of  the  Consecrated 
elements  "  after  "  all  have  communicated :  "  the  term  used  to 
describe  his  action  is  "  reverently"  It  is  to  be  noticed  that 
this  is  the  word  which,  in  Rubric  No.  IV  just  considered,  I 
have  interpreted  to  mean  "  Kneeling ;"  it  might  seem  there- 
fore that  the  same  construction  must  be  put  upon  the  same 
word  in  this  Rubric  :  but  this  by  no  means  follows,  as  will 
be  seen  by  a  reference  to  the  old  Uses  which,  it  must  always 
be  remembered,  were  not  likely  to  be  overlooked  by  the  Re- 
viewers of  1662 :  the  truth  being  that  in  Public  Offices  of 
Religion  the  same  degree  of  reverence  is  not  always  expressed 
by  the  same  action  of  the  Minister  and  People,  e.  g.,  the 
Versicles  and  Responses  beginning  "  O  Lord  shew  Thy  mercy 
upon  us,"  etc.,  in  our  present  Morning  and  Evening  Prayer, 
where  "  the  Priest  "  is  ordered  to  be  "  standing  up"  though 
it  is  plain  that  he  is  engaged  in  exactly  the  same  devotional 
act  as  the  people ;  and  again,  in  the  ante-communion  Service, 
the  Lord's  Prayer  and  two  Collects  are  ordered  to  be  said  by 
"  the  Priest  standing :  "  throughout  this  office  indeed,  except 
where  expressly  ordered  otherwise,  standing  is  the  Celebrant's 
posture  owing  to  the  peculiar  nature  of  that  Ministration  as  a 


135 

"  sacrifice/5  though  in  fact  it  is  "our"  i.  e.,  the  people's  as 
well  as  the  Priest's  "  sacrifice  of  praise  and  thanksgiving." 

There  is  no  Rubric  in  the  old  Uses  strictly  corresponding 
to  this  Rubric  No.  IX,  owing  to  some  difference  in  their 
arrangement  at  this  part  from  the  present  English  Use  :  the 
analagous  one  in  the  Sarum  and  Bangor  Offices  is  as  follows: — 

SARUM.  *  "  Hie  sumat  sanguinem  :  quo  sumpto  inclinet  se 
sacerdos,  et  dicat  cum  devotione  orationem  sequentem:  Gratias  tibi 
ago,  Domine,"  etc. 

BANGOR.  "Hie  sumat  totam  sanguinem:  quo  sumpto  et  calice 
altari  superposito,  inclinans  se  sacerdos  cum  magna  veneratione  in 
medio  altaris  et  crucem  respiciens  dicat  hanc  orationem  sequentem. 
Gratias  tibi,"  etc. 

To  understand  this  (as  applying  to  the  Rubric  No.  IX)  it 
must  be  remembered  that  the  Celebrant  had  just  communi- 
cated himself  with  the  Sacrament  of  the  Body  which  was  still 
resting  on  the  Altar :  then  having  received  in  the  other  kind, 
taking  the  "  whole  of  the  Blood "  according  to  the  above 
Rubrics,  he  proceeded  to  communicate  (in  one  kind)  any  of 
the  people  who  desired  to  receive ;  this  being  done  the  ablu- 
tion of  the  Chalice  immediately  followed  and  then  the  post- 
communion  prayers.  But  as  the  Chalice  when  replaced  on 
the  Altar  necessarily  contained  some  remains  of  the  conse- 
crated wine  (which  remains,  as  the  Rubrics  shew,  were 
treated  with  as  much  care  as  the  contents  of  the  Chalice  im- 
mediately upon  Consecration)  it  cannot  be  reasonably  doubted 
that  any  acts  connected  with  returning  the  Chalice  to  the 
Altar  were  meant  to  be  most  reverential :  yet,  as  has  been 
seen,  Kneeling  was  not  the  expression  of  it ;  nay,  even  in  so 
solemn  a  part  of  the  Office  as  the  oblation  of  the  Sacrament, 
no  more  demonstrative  act  is  ordered  than  (Sarum,  Bangor, 
Ebor)  "  corpore  inclinato  "="  inclinet  se  devoto  "  (Hereford)^ 
l(  profunde  inclinatus  "  in  the  present  Roman  Ritual  :  indeed 
in  this  latter  Office  the  strongest  expression  throughout  the 
whole  action  is  "  genuflexus  adorat,"  i.  e.,  upon  one  knee : 
though  even  that  does  not  occur  in  either  of  the  four  old 
English  Liturgies. 

This  examination  of  Rubrics  No.   IV   and  IX  will  pro- 


136 

bably  facilitate  the  investigation  of  No.  X  where  "re- 
verently" designates  the  posture  alike  of  Celebrant,  Clergy, 
and  People  in  consuming  the  remains  of  the  Sacrament. 
What,  then,  is  the  import  of  the  word  in  this  place,  seeing 
that  (as  I  have  argued)  it  has  two  distinctly  opposite  mean- 
ings in  the  Rubrics  just  considered  ?  Does  it  here  mean 
kneeling,  or  standing,  or  some  third  posture?  Clearly,  I 
think,  it  means  both  kneeling  and  standing ;  and  was  designed 
as  a  general  term  to  cover  the  special  posture  whether  of 
Celebrant  or  others,  for  standing  is  just  as  much  the  Priest's 
reverential  attitude  as  kneeling  is  the  people's  ;  if  the  same 
posture  had  been  intended  for  both  it  is  most  natural  to  believe 
that  the  Rubric  would  have  clearly  expressed  it,  just  as  e.  g., 
the  Priest  is  told  to  say  the  Prayer  of  Access  "  kneeling 
down  " — a  departure  from  his  ordinary  posture  being  designed, 
and  one  which  the  Office  assumes  he  would  not  make  unless 
so  directed :  but  a  common  term  being  employed  to  state  the 
Rule  for  both  Priest  and  People,  that  term  must,  I  contend, 
be  interpreted  in  each  case  in  conformity  with  the  usage  of 
the  Office  throughout  and  according  to  the  analogy  furnished 
by  Rubrics  IV  and  IX. 

This  view  is  confirmed,  I  think,  by  a  similar  general  use  of 
the  word  in  the  Office  for  "  The  Communion  of  the  Sick," 
where  the  Rubric  directs  "  a  convenient  place  in  the  sick 
mans  house,  with  all  things  necessary,  to  be  "  so  prepared  that 
the  Curate  may  REVERENTLY  minister  ....;"  for  as  he  is  to 
"  celebrate  the  Holy  Communion"  according  to  the  public 
rite,  except  where  otherwise  ordered,  and  as  that  public  rite 
prescribes  various  postures  for  the  Celebrant,  so  it  was  need- 
ful to  use  a  term  which  should  include  them  all :  such  a  term 
is  the  word  "  reverently." 

So  far,  then,  as  the  intention  can  be  gathered  from  this 
comparison  of  the  relative  meaning  of  the  word — and  that 
meaning  is  surely  a  most  important  one — the  interpretation 
proposed  at  p.  126  seems  to  be  proved,  viz.,  that  the  posture 
in  which  any  one  makes  his  act  of  Communion  must  be  also 
used  when  the  same  person  consumes  the  remains  of  the 
Sacrament. 


137 

But  it  will  materially  help  to  Jix  this  as  the  intended 
meaning,  if  any  support  for  it  can  be  found  in  the  opinions 
of  those  who  are  known  to  have  been  chiefly  consulted  or 
engaged  in  the  revision  of  1662. 

One  such  opinion  has  already  been  incidentally  noticed  in 
the  passage  from  Bishop  Cosin  (Note  p.  123)  where  reciting  the 
language  of  S.  Thomas  Aquinas  on  the  consumption  of  the 
remains  of  the  Sacrament,  he  translates  (or  rather  paraphrases 
the  words  "  cum  timore  et  tremor e  "  (quoted  by  that  author) 
by  the  very  expression  in  question — "  reverently  : "  saying 

"  There  was  order  taken  for  it  of  old  in  the   Church, 

if  any  remained,  that  the  priests  should  reverently  receive  it." 
The  passage,  too,  is  the  more  noticeable  as  it  may  very  likely 
have  led  to  the  insertion  of  the  order  in  1662  (though  indeed 
it  appeared  in  the  Scotch  Book  of  1638)  that  "if  any  remain 
of  that  which  was  consecrated,  it  shall  not  be  carried  out  of  the 
Church : "  for  it  will  be  seen  that  in  the  passage  which  St. 
Thomas  quotes,  the  remainder  of  the  Sacrament  is  expressly 
ordered  not  to  be  kept  for  the  morrow  ( ft  non  servetur  in 
crastinum") — words  which  we  can  readily  believe  to  have 
been  in  Cosin's  mind  at  the  time  of  the  Revision,  though 
in  the  Note  referred  to  he  does  not  include  them  in  his 
paraphrase  of  the  original. 

Another  passage,  showing  plainly  what  was  Cosin's  view 
(when  he  wrote  his  1st  Series  of  Notes)  of  the  Effect  of 
Consecration  (and  consequently  of  the  reverence  due  to  the 
remains  of  the  Sacrament)  occurs  in  another  Note  upon  the 
Rubric  "  if  any  of  the  bread  and  wine  remain ;  "  for,  at  p.  131, 
he  says : — 

"  Bread  and  wine,  etc."]  It  is  confessed  by  all  divines,  that  upon 
the  words  of  consecration  the  Body  and  Blood  of  Christ  is  really  and 
substantially  present,  and  so  exhibited  and  given  to  all  that  receive 
it ;  and  all  this  not  after  a  physical  and  sensual,  but  after  a  heavenly 
and  invisible,  and  incomprehensible  manner  :  but  yet  there  remains 
this  controversy  among  some  of  them,  whether  the  Body  of  Christ 
be  present  only  in  the  use  of  the  Sacrament,  and  in  the  act  of  eating, 
and  not  otherwise.  They  that  hold  the  affirmative,  as  the  Luther- 
ans, in  Conf.  Sax*  and  all  Calvinists  do,  seem  to  me  to  depart 

*  Editor's  Note.   "  [Docentur  etiam  homines,  sacramenta  esse  actiones  divi- 

T 


138 

from  all  antiquity,  which  place  the  presence  of  Christ  in  the  virtue 
of  the  words  of  consecration  and  benediction  used  by  the  Priest,  and 
not  in  the  use  of  eating  of  the  Sacrament,  for  they  tell  us  that  the 
virtue  of  that  consecration  is  not  lost,  though  the  Sacrament  be  re- 
served either  for  sick  persons  or  other.  Whereupon  Cassander, 
Consul.  Art.  10,  saith,  They  are  mad,  qui  dicunt  mysticam  benedic- 
tionem  Sacramenti  cessare,  aut  virtutem  suam  amittere,  siquce  reliquce 
remanserint  in  dies  futures:  non  enim  rnutabitur  SS.  Corpus  Christi, 
sed  virtus  benedictionis,  el  vivificativa  gratia  jugis  in  ipso  est.  And 
this  most  of  the  Protestants  grant  and  profess  at  first,  though  now  the 
Calvinists  make  popish  magic  of  it  in  their  licentious  blasphemy.* 

Now  if  these  were  the  only  statements  of  Cosin  upon  this 
point  there  could  be  no  room  to  doubt  that  the  post-commu- 
nion Rubric  now  under  discussion  should  be  interpreted  in 
accordance  with  them,  and  consequently  that  the  definition 
already  given  of  "  reverently  "  must  be  the  true  one.  But  it 
would  be  most  unfair  to  pass  over  passages  which,  whatever 
ultimate  conclusion  may  be  made  regarding  them,  certainly  do 
seem  at  first  sight  to  indicate  some  subsequent  change  of  the 
Bishop's  opinion.  The  first  of  these  occurs  in  his  2nd  Series 
of  Notes,  p.  345,  and  was  apparently  written  about  1656  (see 
Note)  within  six  years  of  the  last  revision  of  the  Prayer 
Book,  and  is  as  follows  : — 

"  Kneeling.]  ....  True  it  is,  that  the  Body  and  Blood  of  Christ 
are  sacramentally  and  really  (not  feignedly)  present,  when  the 
blessed  Bread  and  Wine  are  taken  by  the  faithful  communicants ; 
and  as  true  it  is  also,  that  they  are  not  present,  but  only  when  the 
hallowed  elements  are  so  taken,  as  in  another  work  (the  History  of 
Papal  Transubstantiation)-|~  I  have  more  at  large  declared.  There- 
fore whosoever  so  receiveth  them,  at  that  time  when  he  receiveth 
them,  rightly  doth  he  adore  and  reverence  his  Saviour  there, 
together  with  the  sacramental  Bread  and  Cup,  exhibiting  His  own 

nitus  institutas,  et  extra  usum  institutum  res  ipsas  non  habere  rationem  sacra- 
menti,  sed  in  usu  institute  in  hac  communione  vere  et  substantialiter  adesse 
Christum  et  vere  exhiberi  sumentibus  corpus  et  sanguinem  Christi. — Confessio 
doctrinse  Saxonicarum  Ecclesiarum  synodo  Tridentinse  oblata.  A.D.  1551.  cap, 
16.  (p,  282.  ap.  Syllogen  Confessionum,  Oxon.  1827.)  ] 

*  Nicholas  Note.  "A  line  is  worn  out  here,  on  the  edge  at  the  bottom  of  the 
page." 

f  Editor's  Note.  "  [Historia  papalis  Transubstantionis,  etc.,  cap.  IV.  s.  5. 
Cosin's  Works,  vol.  IV.,  p.  49.  That  work  was  written  in  1656,  not  printed  till 
1675.  This  indicates  the  date  of  this  note.  See  the  preface  to  volume  IV. 
Cosin  had  first  written  'Qui  tantum  sumentibus  adest,  et  vera  fide  non  destitutis; ' 
this  he  altered  into  '  Quara  communicantibus  tantum  adsit,'  See  the  treatise 
itself.]" 


139 

Body  and  Blood  unto  them.  Yet  because  that  Body  and  Blood  is 
neither  sensibly  present  (nor  otherwise  at  all  present  but  only  to 
them  that  are  duly  prepared  to  receive  them,  and  in  the  very  act  of 
receiving  them  and  the  consecrated  Elements  together,  to  which 
they  are  sacramentally  in  that  act  united)  the  adoration  is  then  and 
there  given  to  Christ  Himself,  neither  is  nor  ought  to  be  directed  to 
any  external  sensible  object,  such  as  are  the  blessed  Elements.  But 
our  kneeling  and  the  outward  gesture  of  humility  and  reverence  in 
our  bodies,  is  ordained  only  to  testify  and  express  the  inward 
reverence  and  devotion  of  our  souls  towards  our  blessed  Saviour, 
who  vouchsafed  to  sacrifice  Himself  for  us  upon  the  Cross,  and  now 
presented!  Himself  to  be  united  sacramentally  to  us,  that  we  may 
enjoy  all  the  benefits  of  His  mystical  Passion,  and  be  nourished  with 
the  spiritual  food  of  His  blessed  Body  and  Blood  unto  life  eternal." 

The  real  difficulty  of  this  passage,  so  far  as  it  concerns  my 
present  argument,  is  the  writer's  seeming  denial  of  his  former 
apparent  belief — that  the  Body  and  Blood  of  Christ  are 
present  in  the  Sacrament  out  of  its  use :  indeed  his  language, 
in  the  passage  of  his  History  of  Transuhstantiation  to  which 
he  refers,  looks  like  an  unauthorized  development  of  the 
cautious  expression  of  the  28th  Article,  "  The  Sacrament  of 
the  Lord's  Supper  was  not  by  Christ's  ordinance  reserved, 
carried  about,  lifted  up,  or  worshipped ; "  whereas  the 
Bishop  says  (p.  174  Oxford  Trans.)"  ....  we  deny  that  the 
elements  still  retain  the  nature  of  Sacraments,  when  not  used 
according  to  Divine  Institution,  that  is,  given  by  Christ's 
ministers,  and  received  by  His  people ;  so  that  Christ  in  the 
consecrated  bread  ought  not — cannot  be  kept  and  preserved  to 
be  carried  about,  because  he  is  present  only  to  the  communi- 
cants." I  hope  it  is  not  too  presumptuous  to  think  that  the 
words  I  have  italicized  are  hardly  warranted  by  the  language 
of  the  Article,  and  it  seems  a  legitimate  question  whether 
Cosin  by  the  use  of  them  does  not  create  as  great  a  difficulty 
as  that  which  he  wished  to  avoid ;  for,  assume  that  in  any 
given  case  *  the  Sacrament  is  reserved  for  a  sick  person,  then, 

»  This  is  not  a  mere  supposition,  as  the  writer  knows  that  a  member  of  the 
present  English.  Episcopate  (and  one  who  would  certainly  not  be  said  to  hold 
very  high  views  on  the  Eucharist)  not  unfrequently,  in  his  ministrations  as  a 
parochial  Incumbent,  reserved  the  Sacrament,  at  the  public  Celebration,  for  the 
use  of  the  Sick.  And  too,  it  is  no  secret  that  during  the  cholera  in  Leeds  some 
years  ago,  the  Bishop  of  Bipon,  while  saying  that  he  could  not  authorize  reser- 
vation, did  not  feel  himself  justified  in  forbidding  it  in  that  emergency.  A  real 
need  for  thus  acting  doubtless  has  often  arisen  in  the  experience  of  many ;  it 


140 

according  to  the  Bishop's  argument,  one  of  three  views  must 
be  held  (a)  that  being  reserved  for  the  purpose  of  Communion, 
"  Christ  in  the  consecrated  bread  ought "  to  and  can  "  be 
kept  and  preserved ;  "  and  then  this  seems  to  make  the  Pre- 
sence depend  upon  the  intended  object  of  the  Priest :  (6)  or 
that  the  Presence  departs  from  the  Sacr  amentum  when  the 
Ministration  is  ended,  but  returns  to  it  when  used  to  commu- 
nicate the  sick  person :  (c)  or  that  there  could  be  no  presence 
at  all  with  the  Elements,  though  consecrated  at  a  public  or 
private  Celebration,  if  reserved  for  the  use  of  the  Sick,  any 
more  than  if  "  preserved  to  be  carried  about." 

But  while,  on  the  one  hand,  it  is  due  to  Bishop  Cosin  to 
suppose  that  he  could  have  reconciled  the  apparent  discre- 
pancy ;  so,  on  the  other  hand,  admitting  its  existence,  it  does 
not  really  militate  against  the  point  I  am  arguing ;  for, 
whatever  may  have  been  his  exact  opinion  touching  the  con- 
secrated Elements  when  reserved,  he  only  denies  to  them 
"  the  nature  of  Sacraments,  when  not  used  according  to  Divine 
institution:"  the  question  then  is — are  they  used  according 
to  Divine  institution  ("  that  is,"  as  he  says,  "  given  by 
Christ's  ministers,  and  received  by  His  people  ")  when  they 
are  consumed,  as  expressly  directed,  by  those  very  COMMU- 
NICANTS who  have  just  before  been  partaking  of  them  ?  There 
seems  to  me  nothing  either  in  the  passage  from  the  History  of 
Transubstantiation  or  in  the  Note  on  "  Kneeling,"  to  imply 
that  Cosin  would  have  returned  an  answer  in  the  negative ; 
and  if  not,  what  he  says  of  formal  sacramental  reception  may 
surely  be  applied  also  to  the  participation  in  the  remains  of 
the  Sacrament — "  at  that  time  when  he  receiveth  them, 
rightly  doth  he  adore  and  reverence  his  Saviour  there  to- 
gether with  the  Sacramental  Bread  and  Cup,  exhibiting  His 
own  Body  and  Blood  unto  them ;  "  and  then  it  follows  that 
the  same  "  outward  gesture  of  humility  and  reverence  in  our 
bodies  "  is  to  be  used  in  both  cases  alike. 

occurred  once  to  the  writer  in  a  case  where  the  sick  person  died  just  as  the  act 
of  consecrating  the  Eucharist  was  finished;  it  is  morally  certain  often  to  present 
itself  again :  but  how  is  any  one  to  resort  to  the  obvious  remedy — reservation — 
if  view  (c)  suggested  by  Bishop  Cosin' s  theory,  is  thought  to  be  the  most  con- 
sistent one  ?  Nay,  what  is  to  be  thought  of  the  authorized  practice  of  reservation 
in  the  Scotch  Episcopal  Communion  ? 


141 

There  is,  however,  another  Note  of  this  2nd  Series  which 
must  not  be  overlooked  ;  it  runs  thus,  p.  356  : — 

"  And  if  any  of  the  bread  and  wine  remain,  etc.~\  which  is  to  be 
understood  of  that  bread  and  wine,  that  the  churchwardens  provided, 
and  carried  into  the  vestry,  not  of  that  which  the  Priest  consecrated 
for  the  Sacrament ;  for  of  this  if  he  be  careful,  as  he  ought  to  be,  to 
consecrate  no  more  than  will  suffice  to  be  distributed  unto  the  Com- 
municants, none  will  remain. 

"  (Yet  if  for  lack  of  care  *  they  consecrate  more  than  they  dis- 
tribute, why  may  not  the  Curates  have  it  to  their  own  use,  as  well  as 
be  given  to  children,  (Condi  Mastic,  c.  2.)  or  be  burnt  in  the  fire 
( Isych  in  Levit.)  for  though  the  bread  and  wine  remain,  yet  the  con- 
secration, the  Sacrament  of  the  Body  and  Blood  of  Christ  do  not 
remain  longer  than  the  holy  action  itself  remains  for  which  the 
bread  and  wine  were  hallowed  ;  and  which  being  ended,  return  to 
their  former  use  again  ?)  " 

If  indeed  this  last  paragraph  is  a  record  of  Cosin's  opinion, 
it  undoubtedly  would  destroy  the  support  I  have  been  en- 
deavouring to  claim  from  him ;  unless  (as  seems  probable 
from  the  passage  just  noticed,  see  also  p.  127)  he  considered 
the  consumption  of  the  remains  of  the  Sacrament  at  the  Altar 
as  part  of  "  the  holy  action  itself:"  but  from  its  bracketed 
form  and  the  Editor's  suggestion,  it  may  be  most  reasonably 
supposed  that  it  is  nothing  more  than  the  real  or  imaginary 
language  of  an  objector  for  whom  the  Bishop  thought  an 
answer  should  be  provided.  No  such  answer,  however,  seems 
to  be  recorded  by  the  Bishop :  but,  unless  we  are  to  resort  to 
the  very  improbable  surmise  that  he  was  not  a  consentient 
party,  it  may  well  be  considered  that  his  answer  is  furnished 
in  the  amended  Rubric  of  1662. 

Yet  by  way  of  clearing  up  the  difficulty,  it  will  be  well 
to  consider  what  answer  Cosin  would  probably  have  drawn 
from  his  knowledge  of  Ecclesiastical  Antiquity  ;  and  perhaps 
that  answer  can  be  given  in  no  more  concise  and  satisfactory 
way  than  in  the  words  of  Bingham  ;  for,  treating  of  this  very 
question,  "  How  the  remains  of  the  Eucharist  were  disposed  of" 
he  says,  Bk.xv.,  c.  7.,  s. 


*  Editor's  Note.—11  [This  part  of  the  note  was  written  after  the  former,  and 
because  that  occupied  the  page,  this  is  carried  down  the  margin ;  it  appears  to  be 
a  sort  of  quere  or  awopia  in/the  way  of  discussion.]" 


142 

"  Sometimes  what  remained  of  the  Eucharist,  was  distributed 
among  the  innocent  children  of  the  Church.  For,  as  I  have  briefly 
hinted  before,  whilst  the  communion  of  infants  continued  in  the 
Church,  nothing  was  more  usual  in  many  places  than  both  to  given 
children  the  communion  at  the  time  of  consecration,  and  also  to  re- 
serve what  remained  unconsumed,  for  them  to  partake  of  some  day 
in  the  week  following.  Thus  it  was  appointed  by  the  second  Coun- 
cil of  Mascon  in  France,  Anno  588,  '  That  if  any  remains  of  the 
Sacrifice,  after  the  Service  was  ended,  were  laid  up  in  the  vestry,  he 
who  had  the  care  of  them  should,  on  Wednesday  or  Friday,  bring  the 
innocents  to  Church  fasting,  and  then  sprinkling  the  remains  with 
wine,  make  them  all  partake  of  them.  And  Evagrius  (lib.  iv.  c.  36) 
says,  it  was  the  custom  of  old  at  Constantinople  to  do  the  same :  for 
when  they  had  much  remains  of  the  Body  of  Christ  left,  they  were 
used  to  call  in  the  children  that  went  to  School,  and  distribute 
among  them.  And  he  tells  this  remarkable  story  upon  it,  that  the 
son  of  a  certain  Jew  happening  one  day  to  be  among  them,  and  ac- 
quainting his  father  what  he  had  done,  his  father  was  so  enraged  at 
the  thing,  that  he  cast  him  into  his  burning  furnace,  where  he  was 
used  to  make  glass.  But  the  boy  was  preserved  untouched  for  some 
days,  till  his  mother  found  him :  and  the  matter  being  related  to 
Justinian  the  Emperor,  he  ordered  the  mother  and  the  child  to  be 
baptized  ;  and  the  father,  because  he  refused  to  become  a  Christian, 
to  be  crucified  as  a  murderer  of  his  son.  The  same  thing  is 
related  by  Gregory  of  Tours  (de.  Glor.  Martyr,  lib.  i.  c.  10.)  and 
Nicephorus  Callistus  (lib.  xvii.  c.  25),  who  also  adds,  that  the  custom 
continued  at  Constantinople  to  his  own  time,  that  is,  the  middle  of 
the  fourteenth  century  ;  for  he  says,  when  he  was  a  child,  he  was 
often  called  to  partake  of  the  remains  of  the  Sacrament  after  this 
manner  among  other  children." 

To  what  conclusion,  then,  is  it  most  likely  that  Bishop 
Cosin  must  have  been  led  by  a  consideration  of  the  practice  of 
the  Church  and  the  rule  of  the  Council  referred  to  in  his 
question?  Surely  this — that  the  effect  of  the  Consecration 
was  held  to  "remain  longer  than  the  holy  action  itself  re- 
mains for  which  the  bread  and  wine  were  hallowed,"  for  the 
children  were  to  consume  the  remains  fasting,  this  being  the 
rule  laid  upon  Communicants ;  and  therefore  that  being  the 
Sacrament  still,  according  to  Bishop  Overall's  definition  in 
the  Catechism,  and  not  merely  the  Sacr amentum,  "the 
Curates"  might  not  "have  it  to  their  own  use,"  but  it  must 
be  disposed  of  to  the  Communicants  and  with  the  same 
reverence  as  had  accompanied  the  previous  Sacramental  action. 


143 

Again,  with  regard  to  the  other  practice,  that  of  burning 
the  remains,  referred  to  in  Bishop  Cosin's  note,  the  testimony 
of  Bingham  is  equally  explicit ;  he  says,  Ibid  s.  5 — 

"  In  some  places  they  observed  the  rule  given  by  God  for  dis- 
posing of  the  remainders  of  the  sacrifices  of  peace-offerings  and  vows 
under  the  old  law,  which  was  to  burn  them  with  fire.  Lev.  vii.  17. 
This  was  the  custom  of  the  Church  of  Jerusalem  in  the  fifth  century, 
when  Hesychius,  a  presbyter  of  that  Church,  wrote  his  Comment 
upon  Leviticus,  where  he  speaks  of  it  (lib.  ii.)  in  these  words : 
'  God  commanded  the  remainder  of  the  flesh  to  be  burned  with  fire. 
And  we  now  see  with  our  own  eyes  the  same  thing  done  in  the 
Church  :  whatever  happens  to  remain  of  the  Eucharist  unconsumed, 
we  immediately  burn  with  fire,  and  that  not  after  one,  two,  or  many 
days.'  From  hence  our  learned  writers  generally  observe  two 
things  :  1 ,  that  it  was  not  the  custom  of  the  Church  of  Jerusalem  to 
reserve  the  Eucharist  so  much  as  from  one  day  to  another,  though 
they  did  it  in  some  other  Churches.  2.  That  they  certainly  did  not 
believe  it  to  be  the  natural  body  and  substance  of  Christ,  but  only 
his  typical  or  symbolical  body  :  for  what  an  horrible  and  sacrilegious 
thing  must  the  very  Jews  and  Heathens  have  thought  it,  for 
Christians  to  burn  the  living  and  glorified  body  of  their  God  ? 
And  how  must  it  have  scandalized  simple  and  plain  Christians 
themselves,  to  have  seen  the  God  they  worshipped  burnt  in  fire  ? 
And  with  what  face  could  they  have  objected  this  to  the  Heathen, 
that  they  worshipped  such  things  as  might  be  burnt,  which  is  the 
common  argument  used  by  Arnobius,  Lactantius,  Athanasius,  and 
most  others,  if  they  themselves  had  done  the  same  thing  ?  If  there 
were  no  other  argument  against  transubstantiation  and  host-worship, 
this  one  thing  were  enough  to  persuade  any  rational  man  that  such 
doctrines  and  practices  were  never  countenanced  by  the  ancient 
Church." 

So  far,  however,  from  Bishop  Cosin  thinking  this  practice 
of  the  early  Church  any  warrant  for  putting  the  remains  of 
the  Sacrament  to  the  common  uses  permitted  to  the  unconse- 
crated  oblations  of  Bread  and  Wine,  he  must  undoubtedly,  I 
think,  have  regarded  it  as  a  most  distinct  precedent  for  a  very 
reverent  dealing  with  them ;  for  the  object  was  to  prevent 
any  risk  of  profanation — a  precaution  wholly  needless  if  the 
Church  had  then  held  any  such  notion  as  that  propounded  in 
Cosin's  supposed  objection,  viz.,  that  the  Eucharistic  action 
being  ended  "the  bread  and  wine"  which  "were  hallowed 
....  return  to  their  former  use  again."  There  is  no  need, 


however,  it  seems  tome,  to  perplex  this  subject,  as  some  have 
even  lately  done,  by  raising  questions  of  a  gross  and  material 
character  touching  the  oral  manducation  of  the  Sacrament : 
thus  Mr.  Goode  (on  the  Eucharist,  vol.  i.p.  191,)  speaking  of 
the  doctrine  of  the  Real  Presence  as  held  by  Dr.  Pusey,  the 
late  Archdeacon  Wilberforce,  and  Archdeacon  Denison,  says — 

"  If  the  Body  and  Blood  of  Christ  are  so  joined  to  the  bread  and 
wine  that  the  mouth  of  every  communicant  in  receiving  one  neces- 
sarily receives  the  other,  then  brute  animals  eating  and  drinkingth  e 
bread  and  wine  receive  the  Body  and  Blood  of  Christ." 

And  he  complains  that  Archdeacon  Denison,  having  by 
anticipation  noticed  the  objection,  can  only  reply — 

"  .  .  .  .  that  we  are  not  told  what  the  consecrated  Elements  may  be 
to  the  brute  creation,  and  therefore  cannot  affirm  anything  on  the 
subject" 

whereas  Mr.  Goode  says  (p.  49) — 

"  .  .  .  .  the  consistent  Romanists  maintain,  that  brute  animals 
eating  and  drinking  consecrated  Bread  and  Wine,  eat  and  drink  the 
Body  and  Blood  of  Christ." 

Yet,  while  it  is  no  fair  argument  to  assume — that  a  con- 
sequence connected  with  the  doctrine  of  Transubstantiation 
by  some  of  its  maintainers,  is  also  tied  to  a  doctrine  which  its 
advocates  assert  to  be  the  reverse  of  Transubstantiation — it 
may  not  be  improper  to  consider  how  the  objection  can  be 
met.  Let  it  be  granted  that  the  Roman  doctrine  of  the 
change  of  substance  necessarily  involves  the  result  named 
(though  Mr.  Goode  allows,  p.  192,  that  "this  is  a  view  from 
which  even  many  Romanists  shrink,"  professing  to  hold,  as 
S.  Thomas  Aquinas  says,  that  "  '  as  soon  as  the  Sacrament  is 
touched  of  a  mouse  or  a  dog,  the  body  of  Christ  ceases  to  be 
there ' ")  why  should  a  like  result  follow  from  that  Sacramental 
union  which  the  writers  in  question  hold  to  be  involved  by  the 
Real  Presence  of  Christ's  "  Blessed  Body  and  Blood  under  the 
form  of  Bread  and  Wine  ?  "  I  say  "  from  that  Sacramental 
union  which  the  writers  in  question  hold  ;  "  for  perchance  Mr. 
Goode's  expression — "that  the  mouth  of  every  communi- 
cant in  receiving  one  necessarily  receives  the  other  "  might 


145 

be  rejected  by  those  writers  as  implying  a  sensible  oral  con- 
tact opposed  to  the  nature  of  the  res  sacramenti  as  by  them 
understood.  Passing  over  this,  however,  let  me  suggest,  by 
way  of  answer,  an  analogical  argument  which  1  trust  is  not 
irreverent.  The  union,  then,  of  the  sacramentum  and  the  res 
sacramenti  is  often  explained  as  being  in  kind  like  that  of 
man's  soul  and  body ;  and,  again,  this  latter  is  frequently 
used  to  illustrate  the  hypostatical  union  of  the  Word  made 
flesh,  as  being  also  like  it  in  kind. 

Now,  if  a  man  is  bitten  maliciously  by  another  human 
being  or  accidentally  by  an  animal,  we  do  not  speak  of  it  as 
though  only  a  corpse  had  been  so  treated ;  yet,  though  we 
say  "  he  was  bitten,"  we  do  not  mean  that  the  man's  soul  was 
subjected  to  that  same  physical  action  which  inflicted  a  visible 
injury  upon  his  body  :  indeed,  this  is  but  an  application 
of  that  truth  conveyed  by  our  Lord's  words  (S.  Matt.  x.  28.) 
"  Fear  not  them  which  kill  the  body,  but  are  not  able  to  kill 
the  soul." 

But  we  estimate  very  differently  the  act  of  the  human 
being  and  the  act  of  the  animal :  the  former  we  regard  as  a 
crime  and  a  dishonour,  because  unnatural,  and  done  by  a 
being  who  is  conscious  that  it  is  so ;  the  latter  we  treat  as 
neither  an  offence  nor  a  degradation,  because  natural  (in 
its  present  state)  and  done  by  a  creature  lacking  that  reason- 
able soul  which  is  the  source  of  moral  responsibility. 

Applying  this  to  the  Holy  Eucharist,  we  may,  perhaps,  the 
better  understand  how,  as  St.  Paul  says,  (1  Cor.  xi.  27  and 
29),  "whosoever  shall  eat  this  bread,  and  drink  this  cup  of 
the  Lord,  unworthily,  shall  be  guilty  of  the  Body  and  Blood 
of  the  Lord ;  "  for  such  an  one,  though  like  the  worthy  re- 
ceiver he  cannot  "  carnally  and  visibly  press  with "  his 
"teeth"  more  than  "the  Sacrament  [Sacramentum'}  of 
the  Body  and  Blood  of  Christ,"  (Art.  XXIX)  yet,  "not 
discerning  the  Lord's  Body"  does  dishonour  to  that  Res 
Sacramenti  by  the  very  act  of  partaking  with  an  evil  mind, 
and  therefore  to  "condemnation,"  the  sign,  or  Sacrament 
[Sacramentum  seu  Symbolum]  of  so  great  a  thing  [tantae  rei.]" 

Yet  though  no  such  dishonour  as  this  can  be  done  to  the 


146 

Sacrament  (i.  e.,  Sacramentum  and  Res  Sacrament!)  save 
where  this  faculty  of  discrimination  exists,  but  is  neglected  ; 
it  is  not  the  less  a  duty  to  guard  it  carefully  from  risks  of  seem- 
ing irreverence  and,  much  more,  of  profanation.  If,  as  is  the 
case,  we  take  precautions  to  preserve  ourselves  from  harm, 
though  from  no  feeling  that  our  spiritual  part  can  suffer 
physical  injury ;  it  would  seem  only  the  legitimate  develop- 
ment of  a  natural  instinct  so  to  treat  "  the  outward  part  or 
sign  of  the  Lord's  Supper  "  that  "  the  inward  part  or  thing 
signified  "  should  not  be  subjected  to  apparent  indignity  even 
under  circumstances  where  no  design  of  disrespect  could 
possibly  exist.  Hence,  therefore,  the  precautions  taken  in  the 
old  English  Canons  against  the  Reserved  Sacrament  being 
kept  so  long  as  to  become  corrupt :  thus  Elfric's  Canons, 
A.D.  957,  prescribe  that  "  The  holy  housel  ought  to  be  kept 
with  great  diligence,  and  not  be  permitted  to  be  stale,  but 
another  be  always  hallowed  anew  for  sick  men,  in  about  a 
seven-night  or  fortnight,  so  as  that  it  may  not  be  musty  at 
least;"  and  the  Legatine  Canons  at  Westminster,  A.D.  1138, 
Hubert  Walter's  Legatine  Canons  at  York,  A.D.  1195,  and  at 
Westminster,  A.D.  1200,  Archbishop  Peckham's  Constitutions 
at  Reading,  A.D.  1279,  Archbishop  Reynold's  Latin  Consti- 
tutions, A.D.  1322,  alike  forbid  it  to  "be  reserved  above 
seven  days  after  consecration : "  hence,  too,  that  reverent 
"  custom  of  the  Church  of  Jerusalem "  to  "  burn  with 
fire"  such  remains  "of  the  Eucharist"  as  were  "uncon- 
sumed,"  which,  as  furnishing  the  ground  for  Bishop  Cosin's 
enquiry — "Why  may  not  the  curates  have  it  to  their  own 
use  ? " — has  led  to  these  observations.  I  proceed  now  to 
notice  another  comment  of  his  upon  the  same  Rubric;  it 
occurs  in  his  3rd  Series  of  Notes,  p.  481,  and  is  as  follows: — 

"  And  if  any  of  the  bread  and  wine  remain,  the  curate,  etc.]  which 
needeth  not  to  be  understood  of  that  bread  and  wine  which  was  blessed 
and  consecrated,  but  of  that  which  was  brought  to  the  Church,  and 
not  used  for  the  Sacrament.  And  yet  we  read  of  some  such  things 
in  the  Constitutions  of  the  Apostles,  lib.  viii.  cap.  31,  ra?  <7repKr<7evov$ct<; 
tv  TOK  jtxycrTtxot?,  etc.  '  Let  the  deacons  distribute  the  remains  of  the 
blessings  at  the  mysteries  to  the  clergy,  according  to  the  mind  of  the 


147 

bishop  or  presbyters.  To  the  bishop,  four  parts ;  to  a  presbyter, 
three ;  to  a  deacon,  two ;  to  the  rest,  subdeacons,  readers,  singers, 
or  deaconesses,  one  part.'  " 

Upon  this  Note  it  may  be  remarked — that,  if  it  was 
written  (as  there  seems  reason  for  thinking)  subsequently  to 
the  one  last  considered,  it  may  fairly  be  regarded  as  indicating 
the  Bishop's  later  judgment,  even  though  it  were  clear  that 
the  bracketed  part  of  that  Note  conveyed  his  opinion  at  that 
time.  It  must  be  admitted  that  the  passage  presents  a  diffi- 
culty at  first  sight,  and  appears  to  imply  some  uncertainty  in 
the  Bishop's  mind  if,  when  he  says,  "  And  yet  we  read  of  some 
such  things  in  the  Constitutions  of  the  Apostles,"  we  under- 
stand the  "such  things"  to  refer  to  "that  bread  and  wine 
which  was  blessed  and  consecrated  :  "  but  if  we  read  "  yet " 
in  the  not  improbable  sense  of  "  beside ''  or  "  indeed,"  the 
passage  is  quite  plain  and  entirely  consistent  with  what  I  have 
supposed  to  have  been  Cosin's  real  view.  Unless,  however, 
there  is  any  evidence  to  show  that  the  Bishop  believed  the 
Constitution  to  refer  to  the  Consecrated  Elements,  I  see  no 
reason  for  supposing  that  he  took  what,  if  Bingham  be  (as 
would  seem)  correct,  is  an  entirely  wrong  view  of  the  authority 
he  quoted.  Bingham's  statement  (Book  XV.,  cap.  vii.,  s.  3,) 
is  as  follows  : — 

"  Some  learned  persons  confound  this  division  or  consumption  of 
the  consecrated  Elements  with  that  other  division  of  the  oblations 
among  the  clergy,  and  allege  the  Author  of  the  Constitutions  for  it, 
as  if  he  intended  this  when  he  says,  '  Let  the  deacons  divide  what 
remains  of  the  mystical  Eulogice,  by  the  orders  of  the  bishop  or 
presbyters,  among  the  clergy;  to  the  bishops  four  parts;  to  the 
presbyter  three  parts  ;  to  the  deacon  two  parts  ;  to  the  rest  of  the 
clergy,  subdeacons,  readers,  singers,  deaconesses,  one  part.  For  this 
is  acceptable  to  God,  that  every  one  should  be  honoured  according  to 
his  dignity.'  It  is  pjain  he  speaks  not  here  of  the  Consecrated 
Elements,  but  of  the  division  of  the  people's  oblations  among 
the  clergy,  as  Cotelerius  rightly  expounds  it.  For  this  was  one  way 
of  maintaining  the  clergy  in  those  days,  as  has  been  more  fully 
shown  in  another  place  (Book  V.,  chap,  iv.,  s.  1.)  And  though 
he  calls  these  by  the  name  of  the  mystical  Eulogice,  yet  that  does  not 
determine  it  to  the  Consecrated  Elements :  for,  as  has  been  noted 
before,  eulogice  is  a  common  name  that  signifies  both.  And 
Socrates  takes  it  for  the  oblations  in  this  very  case,  when,  speaking 


148 

of  Chrysanthus,  the  Novatian  bishop,  he  says,  he  never  received 
anything  of  the  Church  save  two  loaves  of  the  Eulogice  on  the 
Lord's  day.  Where  he  certainly  means,  not  two  loaves  of  the 
Eucharist,  but  of  the  other  oblations  of  the  people,  which  it  was 
customary  for  the  clergy  to  have  their  proportional  shares  in." 

There  remains  to  be  considered  one  other  statement  of 
Bishop  Cosin  on  this  subject :  it  occurs  in  these  words,  in  his 
Suggestions  for  alterations  in  the  Prayer  Book,  p.  519 — • 

"65,  It  is  likewise  here  ordered,  '  That  if  any  of  the  bread  and 
wine  remain,  the  curate  shall  have  it  to  his  own  use.'  Which 
words  some  curates  have  abused  and  extended  so  far,  that  they  sup- 
pose they  may  take  all  that  remains  of  the  consecrated  bread  and 
wine  itself,  home  to  their  houses,  and  then  eat  and  drink  the  same 
with  their  other  common  meats  ;  at  least  the  Roman  Catholics  take 
occasion  hereby  to  lay  this  negligence  and  calumny  upon  the  Church 
of  England;  whereas  the  Rubric  only  intends  it  of  such  bread  and 
wine  as  remains  unconsecrate  of  that  which  was  provided  for  the 
parish,  (as  appeareth  by  the  articles  of  enquiry  hereabouts  in  the 
visitations  of  divers  bishops.)  And  therefore,  for  the  better  clearing 
of  this  particular,  some  words  are  needful  here  to  be  added,  whereby 
the  priest  may  be  enjoined  to  consider  the  number  of  them  which  are 
to  receive  the  Sacrament,  and  to  consecrate  the  bread  and  wine 
in  such  a  near  proportion  as  shall  be  sufficient  for  them  ;  but  if  any 
of  the  Consecrated  Elements  be  left,  that  he  and  some  others  with 
him  shall  decently  eat  and  drink  them  in  the  Church  before  all  the 
people  depart  from  it." 

How  this  Suggestion  was  carried  out  at  the  Revision  of 
1662  we  know  from  that  very  Rubric  which  I  am  now  dis- 
cussing :  Nichol's  note  upon  Cosin's  proposal  is  "  The  word 
*  unconsecrated  *  is  now  put  in  ;  "  not  of  course  that  he  means 
this  only  was  added :  perhaps  Cosin  had  in  mind  the  Rubric 
of  the  Scotch  Office  of  1638,  which  is  in  these  words : — 

"  And  if  any  of  the  Bread  and  Wine  remain,  which  is  consecrated, 
it  shall  be  reverently  eaten  and  drunk  by  such  of  the  Communicants 
only  as  the  Presbyter  which  celebrates  shall  take  unto  him,  but  it  shall 
not  be  carried  out  of  the  Church.  And  to  the  end  there  may  be  little 
left,  he  that  officiates  is  required  to  consecrate  with  the  least,  and  then 
if  there  be  want,  the  words  of  consecration  may  be  repeated  again,  over 
more,  either  bread  or  wine :  the  Presbyter  beginning  at  these  words  in 
the  prayer  of  consecration  (our  Saviour  in  the  night  that  he  was 
betrayed,  took,  etc.) 


149 

The  form,  however,  which  the  Jlubric  ultimately  took  in 
the  hands  of  the  Reviewers  is  more  explicit  than  this  or  even 
than  Cosin's  suggestion ;  for,  whatever  it  was  meant 
to  imply,  the  Scotch  Rubric  certainly  did  not  expressly  order 
the  consumption  to  take  place  before  the  rest  of  the  people ; 
and  Cosin  only  suggested  that  it  should  be  made  <f  before  all 
the  people  depart,"  which  word  "  all "  may  mean  that  only 
SOME  need  remain,  though  I  think  we  can  quite  fairly  regard 
it  as  not  emphatic  and  only  intending  that  the  Congregation  in 
general  should  stay  until  the  consumption  was  ended  :  but  the 
Rubric,  as  settled  by  Cosin  and  his  co-revisers,  directs  the 
consumption  to  be  "  immediately  after  the  Blessing,"  and 
therefore  gives  no  opportunity  for  the  people  to  leave  the 
Church,  not  to  say  that  all  are  clearly  supposed  to  be  waiting 
to  see  which  of  them  the  Priest  "  shall  then  call  unto  him." 
Taking,  however,  either  view  of  Cosin's  language  it  conveys 
the  same  idea  as  the  Rubric — viz  :  that  the  consumption  of 
the  remains  of  the  Sacrament  is  a  public  religious  act  and  a 
part  of  the  Service  ;  such  it  clearly  was  under  the  old  English 
Uses  (as  was  remarked,  p.  123) ;  such  we  find  it  to  have  been 
in  the  early  Church;  recollecting,  therefore,  the  terms  of 
their  Commission  (see  p.  130)  it  is  most  unlikely  that  the 
Reviewers  of  1662  should  have  intended  to  suggest  a  different 
practice:  of  the  rule  of  the  Early  Church  Bingham  thus 
speaks,  (Book  XV.,  cap.  vii.,  s.  2): — 

"  If  anything  remained  over  and  above  what  was  necessary  for 
these  uses  [i.  e.,  to  communicate  the  sick,  and  to  testify  the  commu- 
nion of  distant  Churches  one  with  another],  then  by  other  rules 
it  was  to  be  divided  among  the  Communicants.  As  appears  from 
the  canons  of  Theophilus,  bishop  of  Alexandria,  one  of  which  is  to 
this  purpose  :  '  Let  the  clergy  and  the  faithful,  ( that  is,  the  commu- 
nicants) divide  among  themselves  the  oblations  of  the  Eucharist,  after 
all  have  participated,  and  let  not  a  catechumen  eat  or  drink  of  them." 

Yet  it  may  be  objected — that,  as  the  Benediction  is  given 
before  the  consumption  of  the  remains  of  the  Sacrament,  so, 
the  Service  must  from  its  structure  be  considered  to  be  over, 
and  therefore  that  the  argument  maintained  here  and  at  p.  125 
fails,  inasmuch  as  the  Ministration  must  be  looked  upon  as 


150 

ended.  But  the  like  might  be  said  of  the  Liturgy  of  the 
Early  Church,  for  the  Bishop's  Benediction  preceded  the 
post-communion  consumption  ;  and  yet  there  can  be  no  doubt, 
I  suppose,  that  then  that  consumption  was  never  regarded  as 
a  mere  supplementary  act  which  had  no  connexion  with  the 
Office  itself:  moreover  it  seems  inconceivable  that  the 
Christians,  and  especially  the  Clergy,  of  that  day,  should 
have  drawn  a  distinction  between  what  was  reserved  and  what 
(not  being  needed  for  reservation)  was  consumed;  therefore, 
treating  with  the  like  reverence,  as  they  did,  what  they 
received  in  their  public  Communion  and  what  was  reserved 
for  the  Communion  of  the  Sick,  it  follows  that  they  must  have 
paid  the  same  regard  to  what  the  Communicants  alone  were 
allowed  to  partake  of  in  the  post-benediction  manducation. 
And  if  this  be  so,  is  there  the  slightest  ground  for  supposing 
^that  the  Reviewers  of  1662  contemplated  a  procedure  different 
from  that  ancient  practice  which  they  took  for  their  principal 
guide,  when  there  was  nothing  in  the  nature  of  the  case  to 
call  for  such  divergence,  but,  on  the  contrary,  a  Doctrinal 
agreement  which  summoned  them  to  take  pattern  by  primitive 
antiquity,  and  by  the  custom  of  the  unreformed  English 
Church,  so  far  as  it  coincided  therewith  ?  To  me  it  seems 
not,  especially  when  we  find  Cosin,  whose  Eucharistic  views 
were  certainly  not  higher  than  some  of  his  most  influential 
co-revisers,  writing  thus  in  the  1st  Series  of  those  Notes 
which  we  have  been  considering;  unless,  indeed,  it  can 
be  proved  that  this  language  is  at  variance  with  his  latest  ex- 
position of  Doctrine  in  his  History  of  Transubstantiation :  his 
words  are  p.  155):  — 

"  The  Body  and  Blood  of  Christ  which  are  verily  and  indeed 
taken,  etc.]  Neither  need  there  any  fault  be  found  with  our  Church 
for  thus  distinguishing  the  outward  sign  from  the  thing  signified, 
the  bread  from  the  Body  of  Christ ;  for  Maldonate  affirms  that  the 
Church  of  Rome  never  said  otherwise,  de  Sacram.,  p.  125  :  Respon- 
dendum  est,  nos  nunquam  dicere,  idem  esse  Sacramentum  et  rem 
significatam;  nam  Sacramentum  vocamus  signum  quod  videtur,  rem 
significatam,  Corpus  Chrisli  quod  non  videtur ;  which  approves  of 
our  doctrine,  and  condemns  that  gross  conceit  of  the  ignorant 
papists,  that  think  they  see,  and  taste,  and  chew  the  very  Body  of 


151 

Christ,  corporally,  which  every  man  abhors  to  conceive,  even  the 
best  learned  among  the  papists  as  well  as  we.  I  cannot  see  where 
any  real  difference  is  betwixt  us  about  this  real  presence,  if  we  would 
give  over  the  study  of  contradiction,  and  understand  one  another 
aright.  Maldonate,  de  Sacr.,  p.  143,  after  a  long  examination  of 
the  matter,  concludes  thus  at  last  with  us  all,  so  the  words  be  not 
taken  exclusive,  as  the  Puritans  will  take  them,  Corpus  Ohristi 
sumitur  a  nobis  sacramentaliter  spiritualiter,  et  realitur,  sed  non  cor- 
poraliter;  and  as  I  have  heard  my  Lord  Overall  preach  it  an  hun- 
dred times. 

There  is  one  other  objection  which  some  might  perhaps 
advance  against  this  view  for  which  I  am  contending — viz  : 
that,  if  what  is  consumed  "  immediately  after  the  blessing  " 
by  "the  Priest  and  such  other  of  the  Communicants  as  he 
shall  then  call  unto  him  "  be  as  much  the  Sacrament  as  what 
they  received  before  the  Benediction,  then  they  make  a 
second  Communion  in  one  day,  and  this  is  forbidden  by  the 
Canons  of  the  Church,  at  least  to  the  Laity. 

But  one  (and  a  sufficient)  answer  to  this  plainly  is — that,  as 
the  old  English  Liturgies  distinctly  provided  for  the  con- 
sumption of  the  remains  of  the  Sacrament  by  the  Celebrant  in 
just  as  reverent  a  way  as  they  ordered  his  communion  to  be 
made,  and  that  too  at  a  period  when  the  authority  of  the  then 
(and  still  existing)  Canons  *  was  recognized  and  acted  upon, 
which  forbade  a  Priest  to  Celebrate  (and  therefore  to  Commu- 
nicate^- twice  in  one  day  without  necessity  ;  so,  to  receive  at 
any  given  Celebration  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  a  second  portion 
of  the  Heavenly  Food  there  set  forth  is  not  to  make  a  second 
Communion.  Moreover,  since  whatever  the  Consecrated 
Elements  were  to  the  Celebrant  under  either  action,  that  also 
they  must  have  been  to  those  who  united  with  him  in  those 
actions,  it  follows  that  if  he  did  not  then  make  a  second 
Communion,  neither  did  they  ;  and  because  the  nature  of  the 

*  viz.-  The  Canons  made  in  King  Edgar's  reign,  A.D.  960 ;  Hubert  Walter's 
Canons  at  Westminster,  A.D.  1200;  Archbishop  Langton's  Constitutions,  A.D. 
1222 ;  Archbishop  Langham's  Constitutions,  A.D.  1367. 

f  The  old  Law  of  the  Church  of  England,  "  that  it  never  be  that  a  priest  cele- 
brate mass,  and  do  not  cat  the  housel himself,"  (Edgar'.s  Canons,  A.D.  9fcO)  is  ex- 
pressly re-enacted  in  Canon  21,  A.D.  1603,  which  orders  "that  every  Minister,  as 
oft  as  he  administereth  the  Communion,  shall  first  receive  that  Sacrament  him- 
self; "  and  also  by  the  Rubric  in  the  present  Communion  Office,  "  Then  shall  the 
Minister  first  receive  the  Communion  in  both  kinds  himself." 


152 

Eucharist  remains  unchanged,  whatever  changes  are  made  in 
the  mode  of  its  Celebration,  therefore  the  like  argument  holds 
good  now;  and  thus,  (to  make  the  comparison  with  all 
reverence)  as  he  who  partakes  a  second  time  of  the  same  food 
at  any  repast  (though  he  has  returned  thanks)  is  not  thereby 
accounted  to  make  more  than  one  meal,  so,  he  who  (subse- 
quent to  thanksgiving)  eats  and  drinks  again  of  "  that  [Bread 
and  Wine]  which  was  consecrated,"  does  not  repeat  his  for- 
mal act  of  Sacramental  Communion,  but  only  continues  to 
partake  of  that  one  "  Supper  "  in  which  he  is  receiving  the 
Body  and  Blood  of  the  Lord. 

Having  regard,  therefore,  to  these  various  considerations 
which  have  now  been  urged,  especially,  viz  :  the  language  of 
Cranmer's  Letter ;  the  Order  of  Communion  1548 ;  the  probable 
traditional  practice  through  Edward  6th's  reign,  and  in  con- 
siderable part,  at  least,  of  Elizabeth's  reign ;  the  increasingly 
reverential  character  of  later  Rubrics ;  the  known  opinions, 
on  the  Real  Presence,  of  the  leading  Reviewers  of  1661 ; 
Bishop  Cosin's  Notes  and  Suggestions;  the  comparison  of 
terms  in  the  present  Book ;  the  directions  of  the  Old  Offices 
to  which  the  Reviewers  were  referred,  and  the  practice  of  the 
Early  Church ;  the  terms  of  the  Rubric  touching  those  whom 
the  Celebrant  is  to  call  to  him  ;  the  time  at  which  they  are  to 
be  called :  it  seems  to  me  that  a  sufficiently  conclusive  argu- 
ment is  furnished  to  sustain  the  theory  here  advanced — That, 
in  ordering  the  remains  of  the  Sacrament  to  be  "  reverently  " 
consumed,  the  Church  of  England  means  them  to  be  partaken 
of  in  that  posture  which  belongs  to  the  act  of  formal  Sacra- 
mental manducation. 

II.  Having  thus  considered  at  some  length  Cranmer's  Let- 
ter, and  examined  all  the  points  of  it  which  appear  to  touch 
the  Declaration  on  Kneeling,  as  well  as  some  other  incidental 
questions  which  spring  from  the  Eucharistic  Office ;  I  pro- 
ceed now  to  search  for  any  other  evidence  calculated  to 
sustain  the  position  I  have  ventured  to  take  up  in  my  own 
Letter:  this  is  the  more  necessary,  since  Archbishop  Cran- 
mer's Letter  to  the  Privy  Council  (though  of  much  value,  as 
throwing  a  needful  light  upon  the  History  of  the  Declaration) 


153 

is  so  far  disappointing — that  it  does  not  furnish  any 
Theological  arguments  in  favour  of  that  rule  of  Kneeling  at 
Communion  for  which  he  was  contending.  Knowing,  how- 
ever, as  we  now  do,  the  basis  on  whitjh  he  urged  the  opposed 
practice,  we  must  be  satisfied  to  look  for  the  grounds  of  its 
support  in  Cranmer's  known  views  at  that  time  on  the 
Eucharistic  Presence.  We  have  already  seen  that  Prelate's 
opinions  in  the  extracts  given  from  his  controversial  language 
used  contemporaneously  with  the  publication  of  the  Declara- 
tion. It  is  indeed,  as  I  remarked  when  quoting  it,  a  difficulty 
to  reconcile  some  of  his  language  with  the  rest,  so  as  to  make 
him  speak  consistently.  It  Cannot  be  denied  that  he  did 
frequently  employ  expressions  which  seem  to  contradict  the 
Doctrine  of  what  has  been  aptly  termed  The  Real  Objective 
Presence:  but  then  it  must  always  be  borne  in  mind  (1)  that 
he  did  not  scruple  to  adopt  all  the  high  language  of  Antiquity : 

(2)  that  he  was  most  jealous  of  all  attempts  to  use  Patristic 
statements  as  a  covering  for  the  prevalent  Roman  Doctrine : 

(3)  and   that,    owing   to   his   desire  of  comprehending    the 
Foreign  Reformers,  he  may  have  been  under  the  continual 
temptation  of  resorting  to  a  phraseology  which  should  not  be 
obnoxious  to  the  leading  men  in  the  several  Reforming  Schools. 

These  considerations  seem  to  suggest  that  it  is  due  to  the 
Archbishop  to  interpret  his  lower  by  his  higher  language, 
rather  than  to  resort  to  the  opposite  course. 

Now  it  must  be  allowed,  I  think,  that  (whatever  expressions 
he  suffered  himself  to  use  in  controversy)  Cranmer  would  well 
weigh  the  language  he  used  or  sanctioned  as  the  medium  of 
Catechetical  Instruction  for  the  Youth  of  the  Kingdom  in  the 
Doctrines  of  the  Church  :  we  cannot  fairly  suppose  that  in 
such  a  Formulary  he  would  permit  statements  or  definitions 
at  variance  with  what  he  believed  to  be  the  truth. 

It  was,  then,  in  1548  (the  very  year,  be  it  remembered,  in 
which  the  preparation  of  Edward's  first  Prayer  Book  was 
completed)  that  a  Catechism,  designated  by  Burnet  "  an  easy, 
but  most  useful  work,"*  (Hist.  Ref.,  vol.  2,  book  i.,  p.  67.) 

*  Strype  calls  it  "a  very  useful  Catechism;"  and  says  that  "  The  substance  of 
this  book  is  grave,  serious,  and  sound  doctrine."— Ann.  book  ii.,  c.  5. 


154 

appeared  under  Cranmer's  immediate  authority,  indeed  ap- 
oarently  revised  if  not  translated  by  him,  which  must  be  held 
to  express  the  Archbishop's  belief  at  that  time.  It  is  a  small 
volume,  and  is  entitled : — 

'•  CATECHISMUS,  THAT  is  TO  SAY,  A  SHORTE  INSTRUCTION  INTO 
CHRISTIAN  RELIGION  FOR  THE  SINGULAR  COMMODITIE  AND  PROFYTE 
OF  CHILDREN  AND  YONG  PEOPLE.  SET  FORTH  BY  THE  MOOSTE 

REUERENDE  FATHER  IN  GOD  THOMAS  ARCHBISHOP  OF  CANTERBURY, 

PRIMATE  OF  ALL  ENGLAND  AND  METROPOLITANS.  Gualterus  Lynne 
excudebat.  1548. 

The  following  are  all  the  passages  which  bear  materially 
upon  the  subject  of  the  Real  Presence  : — 

[a]  "Secondarily  Christ  saieth  of  thebreade,  this  is  mybodye,  and 
of  ye  cuppe  he  sayeth  this  is  my  bloud.     Wherefore  we  ought  to 
beleue  y*  in  the  Sacrament  we  receyue  trewly  the  bodye  and  bloud 
of  Christ.     For   God  is  almyghtye  (as  ye   hearde  in  the  Crede) : 
He  is  able  therefore,  to  do  all  thynges  what  he  wil.     And  as  saint 
Paul  writeth  he  calleth  those  thinges  whiche  be  not,  as  yf  they  were. 
"Wherefore  when  Christe  taketh  breade,  and  saieth,  Take  eate,  this 
is  my  body,  we  ought  not  to  doute  but  we  eat  his  veray  body. 
And  when  he  taketh  the  cuppe,   and  sayeth,  Take  drynke,  this  is 
my  blod,  we  ought  to  thynke  assuredly,   y*  we  drynke  his  veray 
blode.     And  this  we  must  beleue,   yf  we  will  be  counted  Christen 
men.    And  wher  as  in  this  perellous  tyme,  certayne  deceitful  persons 
be  founde  in  manye  places,  who  of  very  frowardnes,  wil  not  graunt, 
that  there  is  the  body  and  bloude  of  Christ,  but  denye  the  same,  for 
no  other  cause,  but  that  they  compasse  by  mans  blynde  reason,  howe 
this  thinge  shoulde  be  broughte  to  passe,  ye  good  children,  shall 
with  all  dilygence  beware  of  suche  persons,  that  ye  suffer  not  your- 
selues  to  be  deceaued  by  them. .......    Wherefore  eschewe  such 

erroneous  opinions,  and  beleue  the  words  of  our  Lord  Jesus,  that 
you  eate  and  drynke  his  veray  body  and  blode  although  mans 
reason  cannot  comprehend  how  and  after  what  manner  ye  same 
is  ther  present." — Fol.  ccxxxv. 

[6]  "  Wherefore  (good  children)  doubt  not,  but  ther  is  the 
bodye  and  bloud  of  our  Lorde,  which  we  receaue  in  the  lorde's 
supper.  For  he  hath  sayed  so,  and  by  the  power  of  his  worde  hath 
caused  it  so  to  be.  Wherefore  seying  Christ  saieth  do  this  as  often 
as  ye  do  it,  in  remembrance  of  me,  it  is  euident  hereby,  that  Christe 
causeth  even  at  thys  tyme,  his  bodye  and  bloude  to  be  in  the  sacra- 
ment, after  that  maner  and  fashion,  as  it  was  at  tyme,  when  he  made 

his  maundye  with  his  disciples And  let  not  the  foulyshe 

talke  of  unbeleuers  moue  you,  who  are  wont  to  aske  this  question, 
How  can  the  pryest  or  minister  make  thebodie  and  bloud  of  Christ? 
To  the  whiche  I  answer  that  the  minister  doth  not  this  of  himself, 
But  Christ  himselfe  doth  gyve  unto  us  his  fleshe  and  blode,  as  his 
wordes  dothe  euidently  declare."— Fol.  ccxxxvi. 


155 

[c]  **  For  when  ye  do  thus  [i.e.  examine  themselves  aright],  tlien 
ye  worthely  receaue  the  body  and  bloud  of  Christ.     And  he  that  so 
receaueth  it,  receaueth  euerlasting  lyfe.     For  he  doth  not  only,  with 
his  bodyly  mouthe  receaue  the  bodye  and  bloude  of  Christ,  but  he 
doth  also  beleue  the  wordeS  of  Christ,  whereby  he  is  assured,  that 
Christes  bodye  was  gyuen  to  death  for  us,  and  that  his  bloude  was 
shed  for  us.     And   he  y*  this  beleueth,  eateth  and  drynketh  the 
bodye  and  bloude  of  Christ  spiritually." — Fol.  ccxxxix. 

[d]  "Wherefore  learne  them  [i.e.  the  words  he  had  rehearsed] 
dilygently  I  pray  you,  y*  when  ye  be  asked,  what  is  ye  Communion  or 
the  lordes  supper?  ye  may  answer,   It  is  the  tTCW  body  and  true 
bloude  of  our  lorde  Jesus  Christe,  which  was  ordeyned  by  Christ 
him  selfe,  to  be  eaten  and  drunken  of  us  Christen  people,  under  the 
forme  of  breade  and  wine." — Fol.  ccxl. 

Looking  at  the  language  of  these  extracts,  and  especially 
of  b  and  c,  it  would  be  bold  to  deny  that  their  author  or 
approver  held  the  Doctrine  of  a  Real  Objective  Presence  in 
the  Holy  Eucharist. 

Yet  it  has  been,  somewhat  obscurely,  implied,  either  that 
he  did  not  then  maintain  "  the  real  [meaning  bodily]  pre- 
sence" *  or  that  he  abandoned  it  soon  after :  the  proofs 
furnished  are  two-fold ;  (1)  First,  passages  in  the  Letters  of 
certain  contemporaries;  -j-  (2)  Next,  a  remark  of  Cranmer's 
own.  J 

*  Goode. — "Nature  of  Christ's  Presence,"  vol.  1,  p.  46.  The  Explanation 
in  brackets  is  Mr.  Goode's. 

f  Traheron  to  Bullinger,  Sept.  28,  1548.  "  '  That  you  may  add  yet  more  to 
the  praises  of  God,  you  must  know  that  Latimer  has  come  over  to  our  opinion 
respecting  the  true  doctrine  of  the  Eucharist,  together  with  the  Archbishop  of 
Canterbury  and  the  other  Bishops,  who  heretofore  seemed  to  be  Lutherans.'  " 

John  ab  Ulmis  to  Bullinger,  Nov.  27,  1548,  "  speaks  of  Cranmer  as  then  'in  a 
great  measure  recovered  from  his  dangerous  lethargy'  on  the  subject  of  the 
presence  in  the  Supper,  though  he  had  spoken  in  different  language  of  him  so 
recently  as  the  previous  August." 

Traheron  to  Bullinger,  Dec.  31,  1548.  " '  On  the  14th  of  December,  if  I  mistake 

not,  a  disputation  was  held  at  London  concerning  the  Eucharist The 

Archbishop  of  Canterbury,  contrary  to  general  expectation,  most  openly,  firmly, 

and  learnedly,  maintained  your  opinion  upon  this  subject I  perceive 

that  it  is  all  over  with  Lutheranism,  now  that  those  who  were  considered  its 
principal  and  only  supporters,  have  altogether  come  over  to  our  side.'  " 

John  ab  Ulmis  to  Bullinger,  March  2,  1549.  *'  speaking  of  the  Conference  on 
the  Eucharist  above  alluded  to,  he,  like  Traheron,  remarks,  that  the  Archbishop 
of  Canterbury  had,  '  contrary  to  general  expectation,'  spoken  on  the  subject  cor- 
rectly and  clearly." 

J  Cranmer's  answer  to  Smith,  1551.  "  *  But  this  I  confess  of  myself  that  not 
long  before  I  wrote  the  said  Catechism,  I  was  in  that  error  of  the  real  [meaning 
bodily/]  presence,  as  I  was  many  years  past  in  divers  other  errors,  as  of  transub- 
stantiation,  of  the  sacrifice  propitiatory  of  the  priests  in  the  mass,'  &c." 


156 

But,  as  to  the  former,  (1)  considering  the  bias  of  the  writers 
and  their  wish  to  claim  Cranmer  for  themselves,  nothing 
satisfactory  seems  capable  of  being  drawn  from  them,  even  if 
the  passages  cited  represented  their  sentiments  accurately; 
I  think,  however,  that  all  do  not.  With  regard  to  the  Letter 
of  Sept.  28th,  if  Trdheron  meant  to  describe  Latimer  as  one 
of  the  "Lutherans,"  then  we  have  his  own  denial  of  it.* 
Mr.  Goode's  account  of  the  Letter  of  John  ab  Ulmis,  of  Nov. 
27th,  has  a  somewhat  different  appearance  when  compared 
with  the  original :  its  words  are : — 

"  That  abominable  and  silly  opinion  of  a  carnal  eating  has  been 
long  since  banished  and  entirely  done  away  with.  Even  that 
Thomas  [Cranmer}  himself,  about  whom  I  wrote  to  you  when  I 
was  in  London,  by  the  goodness  of  God  and  the  instrumentality  of 
that  most  upright  and  judicious  man,  master  John  a  Lasco,-)-  is  in  a 
great  measure  recovered  from  his  dangerous  lethargy." — Orig. 
Letters.  Parker  Society,  p.  383. 

That  this  passage  could  prove  nothing  as  to  Cranmer's 
view  at  that  time  on  "the  real  [meaning  bodily]  presence" 
as  distinct  from  Transubstantiation,  is  plain  from  the  asser- 
tion that  then,  in  1548,  it  had  been  "  long  since  banished," 
even  if  the  expression  "  carnal  eating  "  had  not  been  used  by 
the  writer.  That  he  was  competent  to  vouch  for  the  Arch- 
bishop's opinions  may  well  be  doubted  when  we  find  him  (in 
that  Letter  of  which  Mr.  Groode  only  says  "  he  had  spoken  in 
different  language  of  him  [Cranmer]  so  recently  as  the  pre- 

*  "Latimer.— I  have  long  sought  for  the  truth  in  this  matter  of  the  Sacra- 
ment, and  have  not  been  of  this  mind  past  seven  years :  and  my  lord  of  Canter- 
bury's book  hath  especially  confirmed  my  judgment  herein.  If  I  could  remember 
all  therein  contained,  I  would  not  fear  to  answer  any  man  in  this  matter. 

"  Tresham. — There  are  in  that  book  six  hundred  errors. 

"  Weston*— You  were  once  a  Lutheran. 

"Latimer. — No,  I  was  a  papist :  for  I  never  could  perceive  how  Luther  could 
defend  his  opinion  without  transubstantiation." — Disp.  at  Oxford,  1554.  Foxe, 
vol.  vi.  p.  505. 

Strype  referring  to  this  Disputation  says,  "  It  was  but  seven  y«ars  before  his 
burning  that  he  [i.  e.  Latimer]  relinquished  that  old  error,"  i.e.  of  the  "corporeal 
presence,"  or  "transubstantiation,"  as  he  there  shews. — Life  of  Cranmer, 
bk.  i.,  c.  18. 

f  "'John  ab  Ulmis,'  observes  Dr.  Jenkyns  (in  his  Preface  to  Cranmer, 
p.  Ixxx.)  '  is  a  competent  witness  respecting  the  time  when  the  change  in 
Cranmer's  opinions  became  known,  though  he  was  mistaken  with  regard  to  the 
person  by  whom  it  was  effected.'  This  was  Dr.  Ridley,  afterwards  Bishop 
of  Rochester,  and  his  fellow-martyr.  See  Strype,  Cranmer,  97,  and  above, 
p.  13,  n.  1."— Editor's  Note. 


157 

vious  August")  thus  wholly  misrepresenting  the  character  of 
the  Archbishop's  Catechism  : — 

"  ....  I  would  have  you  know  this  for  certain,  that  this  Thomas 
has  fallen  into  so  heavy  a  slumber,  that  we  entertain  but  a  very  cold 
hope  that  he  will  be  aroused  even  by  your  most  learned  letter. 
For  he  has  lately  published  a  Catechism,  in  which  he  has  not  only 
approved  that  foul  and  sacrilegious  tran substantiation  of  the  papists 
in  the  holy  supper  of  our  Saviour,  but  all  the  dreams  of  Luther  seem 
to  him  sufficiently  well-grounded,  perspicuous,  and  lucid." — Orig. 
Letters.  P.S.  p.  381. 

Now  let  any  one  look  at  the  extracts  just  given  from  this 
Catechism,  and  say  whether  they  teach  Transubstantiation, 
as  John  ab  Ulmis  so  unscrupulously  affirms  :  but,  apart  from 
its  actual  language,  it  must  have  been  notorious  enough  that 
— whether  its  source  was  regarded,  or  the  design  of  the  Arch- 
bishop, or  the  alterations  he  made  in  the  Translation,  or  his 
known  opinion  at  that  time — Cramner's  Catechism  was  not 
intended  to  teach  the  Roman  Doctrine  on  the  Eucharist.* 
Certainly,  then,  this  writer  is  no  trustworthy  witness  of  the 
Archbishop's  views. 

Of  the  two  Letters  dated  Dec.  31,  1548,  and  March  2, 
1549,f  it  seems  enough  to  say  that — as  all  we  appear  to  know 

*  Else  we  may  be  quite  certain  that  Dr.  Row  land  Taylor  (in  his  Examination, 
January  22nd,  1554-5,  when  "Master  Secretary  Bourn  said,  *  Which  of  the  reli- 
gions mean  ye  of,  in  King  Edward's  days.  For  ye  know  there  were  divers 
books  of  religion  set  forth  in  his  days.  There  was  a  religion  set  forth  in  a  Cate- 
chism by  my  Lord  of  Canterbury :  do  you  mean  that  you  will  stick  to  that  ? "  ) 
would  not  have  answered,  '  My  Lord  of  Canterbury  made  a  Catechism  to  be 
translated  into  English,  which  book  was  not  of  his  own  making ;  yet  he  set  it 
forth  in  his  own  name :  and  truly  that  book  for  the  time  did  much  good." — 
Foxe,  vi.  685. 

f  But  as  Mr.  Goode's  extract  affords  but  a  very  imperfect  representation  of 
these  letters,  it  seems  desirable  to  give  them  more  at  length  here :  they  are  as 
follows : — 

Traheron  to  Bullinger,  Lond.  Dec.  31,  1548.—" On  the  14th  of  Decem- 
ber, if  I  mistake  not,  a  disputation  was  held  at  London,  concerning  the  Eucharist, 
in  the  presence  of  almost  all  the  nobility  of  England.  The  argument  was  sharply 
contested  by  the  Bishops.  The  Archbishop  of  Canterbury,  contrary  to  general 
expectation,  firmly,  and  learnedly  maintained  your  opinion  upon  this  subject. 
His  arguments  were  as  follows  : — The  Body  of  Christ  was  taken  up  from  us  into 
heaven.  Christ  has  left  the  world.  '  Ye  have  the  poor  always  with  you,  but  me 
ye  have  not  always/  &c.  Next  followed  the  Bishop  of  Rochester  [Ridley],  who 
nan  died  the  subject  with  so  much  eloquence,  perspicuity,  and  power,  as  to  stop 
the  mouth  of  that  most  zealous  Papist,  the  Bishop  of  Worcester  [Heath].  The 
truth  never  obtained  a  more  brilliant  victory  among  us.  I  perceive  that  it  is  all 
over  with  Lutheranism,  now  that  those  who  were  considered  its  principal  and  al- 
most only  supporters,  have  altogether  come  over  to  our  side "— "  [Postscript, 

added  by  John  ab  Ulmis.]  Lo  !  just  as  Master  Traheron  was  about  to  send  his 


158 

of  the  Disputation  at  London,  on  Dec.  14,  1548,  is  summed 
up  in  those  words  of  King  Edward's  Journal:  "  There  was  a 
notable  Disputation  of  the  Sacrament  in  the  Parliament 
House" — it  would  be  a  most  unsafe  course  to  determine 
Cranmer's  views  at  that  time  from  such  notices  of  such 
writers  upon  a  Controversy  of  which  no  records  apparently 
remain. 

(2.)  With  regard  to  Cranmer's  own  language  about  himself, 
it  seems  to  furnish  the  best  possible  evidence  that,  though 
when  (in  1548)  he  published  his  Catechism,  he  had  abandoned 
those  particular  views  on  the  subject  of  the  Presence,  which 
(in  1551)  he  declared  to  be  unsound — yet  that,  at  this  latter 
date,  he  maintained  the  same  doctrine  which  he  had  delibe- 

letter,  I  happened  to  come  into  his  room,  and  can  do  no  otherwise  than  send  you 
this  brief  salutation ;  for,  owing  to  the  great  impatience  of  the  messenger,  I  am 
unable  to  write  more.  I  will  tell  you  everything  in  a  few  days.  In  haste. 
London.  The  foolish  Bishops  have  made  a  marvellous  recantation." 

It  is  not  very  clear  whether  this  last  sentence  is  meant  to  confirm  Traheron's 
statement,  or  to  imply  some  retractation  of  the  opinion  which  Traheron  thought 
the  Bishops  had  pronounced :  but  the  doubt  does  not  affect  my  argument.  The 

Sromised  letter,  however,  seems  not  to  exist ;  though  in  the  following  letter  of 
ohn  ab  Ulmis  to  Bullinger,  "dated  March  2nd,  1548-9,"  and  "  written  appa- 
rently from  Oxford,"  he  says  "' .  .  .  .  I  had  most  fully  written  to  you  respecting 
almost  everything  that  I  thought  it  would  interest  you  to  know,  three  days 
before  I  received  your  letter ;  partly,  too,  because  I  was  aware  that  Master 
Traheron  ....  had  informed  yeu  of  the  discussion  of  the  Council  respecting  the 
Eucharist."  Afterwards  he  continues  thus  :—*"....  As  to  what  they  have  re- 
ported respecting  religion,  namely,  that  there  are  great  differences  of  opinion,  I  ad- 
mit that  such  has  been  the  case  to  a  considerable  extent ;  but  I  can  now  assert  that 
by  the  goodness  of  God,  the  minds  of  all  good  men  are  disposed  to  harmony  and  peace. 
For  the  cause  of  these  dissensions  is  removed  in  this  present  parliament ;  namely, 
the  babbling  and  dogmas  of  Antichrist,  which  are  now  positively  and  effectually 
banished.  I  would  here  write  you  word  what  has  been  done  and  determined  re- 
specting the  Lord's  Supper,  only  that  your  most  excellent  and  loving  friend,  Master 
Traheron,  has  already  acquainted  you  with  every  particular.  From  him,  therefore, 
you  will  learn  the  whole  matter  more  completely,  and  from  me  these  few  things 
very  briefly.  The  Archbishop  of  Canterbury,  a  man  of  singular  worth  and  learn- 
ing, has,  contrary  to  the  general  expectation,  delivered  his  opinion  upon  this  subject 
learnedly,  correctly,  orderly,  and  clearly;  and  by  the  weight  of  his  character, 
and  the  dignity  of  his  language  and  sentiments,  easily  drew  over  all  his  hearers  to 
our  way  of  thinking.  His  opponent  was  that  lying  and  subtle  Cerberus,  the 
Bishop  of  Winchester,  together  with  a  number  of  other  babblers  who  were 
brought  in,  men  who  knew  nothing  else  beyond  a  few  quiddities,  and  those  silly 
and  false.  Peter  Martyr  has  openly  declared  to  us  all,  on  this  very  day  on  which 
I  write  this  letter,  what  was  his  opinion  upon  this  subject ;  and  he  seemed  to  all 
of  us  not  to  depart  even  a  nail's-breadth  from  that  entertained  by  yourself.  Nay, 
more,  he  has  defended  that  most  worthy  man,  Zwingle,  by  the  testimony  of  your 
opinion,  and  takes  part  with  him  against  his  adversaries,  who  falsely  object  to 
him  that  he  makes  the  Sacrament  a  mere  sign  :  he  moreover  declares  that  those 
persons  are  out  of  their  senses,  who  make  the  body  of  Christ  to  be  without  any 
local  habitation,  uncircumscribed,  in  many  places  at  once,  void  of  shape,  and  other 
matters  of  the  like  kind.  .  .  .  '  "—Original  Letters,  p.  388. 


159 

rately  put  forth  three  years  before.  For  (a)  when  he  says, 
"  T  was  in  that  error  of  the  real  presence"  (whatever  that 
error  was)  "  not  long  before  I  wrote  the  said  Catechism," 
he  plainly  means  that  he  was  not  in  that  error  when  he  wrote 
it ;  and  (6)  in  another  place  he  distinctly  adheres  to  (in  1551) 
the  language  of  the  Catechism,  only  stipulating  that  no  car- 
nal sense  is  to  be  put  upon  it  such  as  Gardiner,  in  his  Articles 
of  January  21,  1550 — 1  (see  p.  27)  had  imposed  for  his  own 
justification.  His  words  are  : — 

"  And  in  that  Catechism  I  teach  not,  as  you  do,  that  the  body  and 
blood  of  Christ  is  contained  in  the  Sacrament,  being  reserved,  but 
that  in  the  ministration  thereof  we  receive  the  body  and  blood  of 
Christ ;  whereunto  if  it  may  please  you  to  add  or  understand  this 
word  '  spiritually,'  then  is  the  doctrine  of  my  Catechism  sound  and 
good  in  all  men's  ears,  which  know  the  true  doctrine  of  the  Sacra- 
ment."— Ans.  to  Gardiner. 

Moreover,  Cranmer  refers  to  and  repeats  in  this  part  of  his 
answer  to  Gardiner's  criticisms  upon  his  "Defence  of  the 
true  and  catholic  Doctrine  of  the  Sacrament,"  what  he  had 
written  in  that  Treatise  of  1 550 :  the  passage  is  as  follows  : — 

"  So  doth  St.  John  Chrysostem  [in  Joann.  Horn,  xlvi.]  say,  that 
we  see  Christ  with  our  eyes,  touch  him,  feel  him,  and  grope  him 
with  our  hands,  fix  our  teeth  in  his  flesh,  taste  it,  break  it,  eat  it,  and 
digest  it,  make  red  our  tongues  and  die  them  with  his  blood,  and 
swallow  it,  and  drink  it. 

"  And  in  a  Catechism  by  me  translated  and  set  forth,  I  used  like 
manner  of  speech,  saying,  that  with  our  bodily  mouths  we  receive  the 
body  and  blood  of  Christ.  "Which  my  saying  divers  ignorant  per- 
sons, not  used  to  read  old  ancient  authors,  nor  acquainted  with  their 
phrase  and  manner  of  speech,  did  carp  and  reprehend  for  lack  of 
good  understanding. 

"For this  speech,  and  other  before  rehearsed  of  Chrysostum,  and  all 
other  like,  be  not  understood  of  the  very  flesh  and  blood  of  our  Saviour 
Christ,  (which  in  very  deed  we  neither  feel  nor  see,)  but  that  which 
we  do  to  the  bread  and  wine,  by  a  figurative  speech  is  spoken  to  be 
done  to  the  flesh  and  blood,  because  they  be  the  very  signs,  figures, 
and  tokens  instituted  of  Christ,  to  represent  unto  us  his  very  flesh 
and  blood. 

"  And  yet  as  with  our  corporal  eyes,  corporal  hands,  and  mouths, 
we  do  corporally  see,  feel,  taste,  and  eat  the  bread,  and  drink  the 
wine,  (being  the  sign  and  sacraments  of  Christ's  body,)  even  so  with 
our  spiritual  eyes,  hands,  and  mouths,  we  do  spiritually  see,  feel, 
taste,  and  eat  his  very  flesh,  and  drink  his  very  blood." — Ibid. 
p.  226. 


160 

Mr.  Goode  (vol.  1,  p.  46)  claims  the  Archbishop's  state- 
ment, as  to  his  change  of  opinion,  in  proof  that  when  he  put 
out  the  first  Book  of  Homilies  (in  1547)  "he  had  not  then 
embraced  the  true  doctrine  on  the  subject  of  the  Eucharist," 
and  that,  consequently,  we  are  bound  to  consider  him  as 
having  subsequently  abandoned  the  language  of  his  Adver- 
tisement at  the  end  of  that  Book,  where  a  Homily  is  pro- 
mised "  of  the  due  receiving  of  his  blessed  Body  and  Blood, 
under  the  form  of  Bread  and  Wine."  Mr.  Goode  contends  that 
the  expression,  "under  the  form  of  bread  and  wine,"  neces- 
sarily "  expresses  the  doctrine  of  Transubstantiation ; "  though 
Cranmer  (in  1551)  distinctly  states  that  he  had,  in  1548,  "  many 
years  past"  abandoned  that  error :  but  Mr.  Goode  presses  the 
same  phrase  into  covering  what  he  calls  "  the  doctrine  of  the 
Bodily  Presence,"  which  doctrine  he  argues,  from  Cranmer's 
language,  the  Archbishop  "  held  ....  till  after  "  the  publi- 
cation of  the  Homilies  in  1547.  Dates,  however ,  prove,  I 
think,  that  the  words,  "  not  long  before,"  do  not  carry  down 
Cranmer's  belief  of  a  "  Bodily,"  i.  e.t  a  carnal  presence  to  the 
time  of  their  publication,  unless,  indeed,  it  can  be  shewn  that 
the  Archbishop's  opinions  underwent  a  most  material  change 
within  three  or  four  months  of  that  time.  For  the  Homilies 
were  prepared  on  purpose  to  be  lodged  in  the  several 
Dioceses,  with  the  Royal  Injunctions  of  1547  by  the  King's 
Visitors  as  they  proceeded  through  the  kingdom  that  year : 
that  Visitation  was  to  have  commenced  in  May  or  June,  but 
was  delayed  until  August ;  a  delay  which,  it  may  be,  was 
partly  caused  by  the  difficulties  which  Cranmer  had  to 
encounter  from  Gardiner,  Bishop  of  Winchester,  whose 
countenance  and  assistance  he  was  anxious  to  obtain  in  the 
preparation  of  the  Homilies,  which,  however,  was  ultimately 
refused,  though  he  complained  much  of  some  parts  of  them 
when  they  were  finished,  pretty  much  because,  as  Cranmer 
thought,  "he  liked  nothing  unless  he  did  it  himself," 
(Strype's  Cranmer,  bk.  ii.,  c.  3.)  Now  there  was  barely  time 
for  the  Homilies  to  be  distributed  by  the  Visitors,  before  the 
Statute  1  Edw.  VI.,  c.  i,,  was  passed  on  Nov.  4th. — "  An  Act 
against  such  as  shall  unreverently  speak  against  the  Sacrament 


161 

of  the  Altar,  and  of  the  receiving  thereof  in  both  kinds  :"  to 
that  Statute  the  Archbishop  was  clearly  a  consentient  party, 
for  in  the  contemporaneous  Convocation,  "  Session  V.  Novem- 
ber ult.  .  *  .  .  Mr.  Prolocutor  exhibited  ....  a  form  of  a  cer- 
tain ordinance,  delivered  by  the  most  reverend  the  Arch- 
bishop of  Canterbury,  for  the  receiving  of  the  Body  of  our 
Lord  under  both  kinds,  viz.,  of  bread  and  wine."  (Ib.  c.  4.) 
This  Act  was  followed  up  by  the  Royal  Proclamation  of 
Dec.  27th,  already  quoted  (see  p.  6),  the  language  of  which, 
while  expressly  affirming  "  that  the  body  and  blood  of  Jesus 
Christ  is  there"  leaves  no  room  for  doubt  that  one  object 
which  Cranmer  aimed  at,  in  procuring  the  passing  of  the 
Statute,  was  to  suppress  the  "  unreverent "  belief  then  popu- 
lar, of  a  gross  carnal  presence,  whether  held  in  connexion 
with  Transubstantiation  or  not ;  though  it  was  also  directed 
generally  against  those  who  "go  about  in  their  sermons  or 
talks  arrogantly  to  define  the  manner,  nature,  fashion,  ways, 
possibility  or  impossibility  of  those  matters."  Mr.  Goode 
may  probably  have  mistaken  Cranmer's  views  at  this  time 
from  having,  apparently,  lost  sight  of  the  fact  of  this  popular 
belief;  for  he  says  (p.  19),  "  That  neither  Romanists  nor 
Lutherans  have  ever  held  a  gross,  visible,  material  presence, 
or  a  presence  of  the  natural  body  after  a  natural  manner." 
That  this  is  an  error>  as  regards  the  Romanists,  an  examina- 
tion of  the  passages  at  pp.  6  and  28  will,  I  think,  sufficiently 
demonstrate.  Supposing  it,  however, to  be  even  true  that  this 
sudden  change  of  opinion  did  occur,  (though,  as  I  have 
argued,  the  evidence  seems  wholly  against  it,)  it  would  be  no 
proof  that  Cranmer  repudiated  the  phrase,  "  Under  the  form 
of  bread  and  wine;"  on  the  contrary,  in  the  Catechism  of 
1548,  which  was  published  shortly  after  the  occurrences  just 
referred  to,  he  actually  employs  the  same  language,  (see  §  d, 
p.  155)  so  that  one  of  two  conclusions  must  follow — (1)  Either 
he  maintained  the  same  doctrine  at  the  publication  of  the 
First  Book  of  Homilies,  as  well  as  when  the  Catechism  ap- 
peared ;  or  (2)  that  he  accounted  the  phrase,  "  Under  the 
form  of  bread  and  wine,"  alike  suited  to  express  the  doctrine 
which  he  held  when  he  abandoned  any  notion  of  a  carnal 

Y 


162 

Presence.  To  my  own  mind,  the  evidence  proves — that  the 
Archhishop  did  not  hold  the  doctrine  of  what  Mr.  Goode 
calls,  "the  Bodily  presence,"  when  he  published  the  First 
Book  of  Homilies ;  that  as  he  used  the  phrase  in  question 
then,  so  he  employed  it  in  his  Catechism  ;  and  that,  he 
neither  had  occasion,  nor  intended  to  disuse  or  to  disown  it 
afterwards  ; — for  as  to  Cranmer's  language  to  Gardiner,  upon 
which  Mr.  Goode  mainly  relies  for  proof  that  the  Archhishop 
did  repudiate  the  phrase,  it  seems  to  me  foreign  to  such  an 
intention,  as  I  have  already  suggested  at  p.  21  ;  and  moreover, 
such  statements  of  Cranmer's  doctrine  as  those  furnished  at 
p.  22  and  elsewhere,  are  anything  but  inconsistent  with  a  re- 
tention of  the  phrase. 

It  has,  indeed,  been  suggested  by  a  Prelate  (who,  like  Mr. 
Goode,  apparently  desires  to  free  Cranmer  from  the  respon- 
sibility of  the  phrase)  that  it  may  have  been  "  surreptitiously 
introduced:"  but  it  seems  inconceivable  that  this  should 
have  occurred,  considering  Cranmer's  personal  superintendence 
of  the  publication  of  the  Homilies.  Yet  if  it  were  so,  it  is 
no  less  difficult  to  imagine  that  the  Archbishop  should  have 
been  silent  on  the  matter,  when  Gardiner  wrongly  quoted 
the  language  as  being  in  the  Communion  Office  of  1549,  if  a 
phrase  which  he  is  now  said  to  have  repudiated  had  found  its 
way  into  an  Advertisement  of  forthcoming  Homilies,  both 
without  his  knowledge  and  against  his  distinct  convictions. 
But  the  same  Prelate  has  further  suggested — that  "if  we 
are  to  refer  to  the  notice  at  the  end  of  the  one  book,  let  us 
take  with  it  the  title  page  at  the  beginning  of  the  second, 
and  the  titles  of  the  two  parts  of  the  Homily  itself.  Neither 
here,  nor  in  the  words  of  the  Homily,  does  the  expression 
*  under  the  form  of  bread  and  wine*  occur."  If,  however, 
there  exists  an  apparent  inconsistency,  such  as  is  here  meant 
to  be  indicated,  it  may  arise  from  insufficient  attention  to 
the  earlier  words  of  the  Advertisement,  which  perhaps  have 
hardly  received  due  notice,  on  either  side,  in  the  controversy 
touching  the  disputed  formula. 

The  terms,  then,  of  the   Advertisement  imply  that   the 
object  of  the  promised  Homily  was  to  treat  "of  the  due  re- 


163 

ceiving"  rather  than  of  the  Presence  in  the  Sacrament ;  con- 
sequently, while  the  Title  of  the  Second  Book  recognizes  the 
Notice  of  the  First  Book,  there  need  be  no  surprise  (rather  it 
was  to  be  expected)  that  the  Title  of  the  promised  Homily 
should  convey  the  specific  purpose  of  it ;  and  so  in  "  The 
Table  of  Homilies  ensuing,"  the  15th  is  called  "  Of  the  worthy 
Receiving  of  the  Sacrament"  while  the  " Homily "  itself  is 
intituled  not  merely  "  of  the  worthy  receiving,"  but  of  the 
"  reverent  esteeming  of  the  Sacrament  of  the  Body  and  Blood 
of  Christ :  "  as  if  in  part  to  fulfil  the  promise  of  the  PROCLA- 
MATION just  noticed  to  "  declare  and  set  forth  an  open  doc- 
trine thereof,  [i.  e.,  of  the  Sacrament],  and  what  terms  and 
words  may  justly  be  spoken  thereby,  other  than  be  expressly 
in  the  Scripture  contained  in  the  act  before  rehearsed," — a 
promise  which  Cranmer  may  have  found  it  the  more  needful 
to  redeem,  considering  the  then  growing  irreverence  on  the 
subject.  If,  moreover,  the  Title  be  Cranmer's  then  it  would 
seem  that  we  may  fairly  read  the  word,  "  Reverent,"  by  the 
light  of  the  same  language  in  his  letter  to  the  Privy  Council 
already  commented  upon ;  and,  too,  may  consider  these  and 
the  following  statements  of  the  Homily  as  being  mutually 
expletive : — 

Part  I.  (a.)  " .  .  .  .  We  must  address  ourselves  to  frequent  the 
same  [Table]  in  reverent  and  comely  manner,  lest  as  physic  pro- 
vided for  the  body,  being  misused,  more  hurteth  than  profiteth ;  so 
this  comfortable  medicine  of  the  soul,  undecently  received,  tend  to 
our  greater  harm  and  sorrow.  And  St.  Paul  saith,  He  that  eateth 
and  drinketh  unworthily,  eateth  and  drinJceth  his  own  damnation." 

(6.)  "  We  must  then  take  heed  ....  lest  of  two  parts  we  have  but 
one." 

(c.)  "  For  this  table  is  not,  saith  Chrysostom,  for  chattering  jays, 
but  for  eagles,  who  flee  thither  where  the  dead  body  lieth." 

(d.)  *'....  Thus  much  we  must  be  sure  to  hold,  that  in  the 
Supper  of  the  Lord  there  is  ....  no  bare  sign,  no  untrue  figure  of 
a  thing  absent/' 

(«.)  "  And  truly,  as  the  bodily  meat  cannot  feed  the  outward  man, 
unless  it  be  let  into  a  stomach  to  be  digested,  which  is  healthsome 
and  sound ;  no  more  can  the  inward  man  be  fed,  except  his  meat 
be  received  into  his  soul  and  heart,  sound  and  whole  in  faith." 

(/.)  "  It  is  well  known  that  the  meat  we  seek  for  in  this  supper 
is  spiritual  food,  the  nourishment  of  our  soul,  a  heavenly  refection, 


164 

and  not  earthly ;  an  invisible  meat,  and  not  bodily  ;  a  ghostly  sub- 
stance, and  not  carnal ;  so  that  to  think  that  without  faith  we  may 
enjoy  the  eating  and  drinking  thereof,  or  that  that  is  the  fruition  of 
it,  is  but  to  dream  a  gross  carnal  feeding,  basely  objecting  and  binding 
ourselves  to  the  elements  and  creatures." 

(#•)  " «  .  .  .  The  unbelievers  and  faithless  cannot  feed  upon  that 
precious  body." 

(h.)  "  Wherefore  let  us  prove  and  try  ourselves  unfeignedly 

so  that  at  this  His  table  we  receive  not  only  the  outward  Sacrament, 
but  the  spiritual  thing  also ;  not  the  figure,  but  the  truth  ;  not  the 
shadow  only,  but  the  body;  not  to  death,  but  to  life  ;  not  to  de- 
struction, but  to  salvation " 

Part  II.  (i.)  "  You  have  heard  with  what  constant  faith  we  should 
clothe  and  deck  ourselves,  that  we  might  be  fit  and  decent  partakers 
of  that  celestial  food." 

(&.)  "  St.  Basil  saith,  it  behoveth  him  that  cometh  to  the  body  and 
blood  of  Christ,  in  commemoration  of  Him  that  died  and  rose 
again,  to  be  pure  from  all  filthiness  of  the  flesh  and  spirit,  lest  he  eat 
and  drink  his  own  condemnation " 

(/.)  "  Dost  thou  neither  fear  God,  the  maker  of  this  feast ;  nor 
reverence  his  Christ,  the  refection  of  meat ;....?" 

(m.)  "  For  surely,  if  we  do  not  with  earnest  repentance  cleanse 
the  filthy  stomach  of  our  soul,  it  must  needs  come  to  pass,  that  as* 
wholesome  meat  received  into  a  raw  stomach,  corrupteth  and  marreth 
all,  and  is  the  cause  of  further  sickness;  so  shall  we  eat  this  whole- 
some bread,  and  drink  this  cup  to  our  eternal  destruction." 

(ft.)  "If  they  be  worthy  blame  which  kiss  the  prince's  hand  with 
a  filthy  and  unclean  mouth,  shalt  thou  be  blameless  which,  with  a 
stinking  soul,  full  of  covetousness,  fornication,  drunkenness,  pride, 
full  of  wretched  cogitations  and  thoughts,  dost  breathe  out  iniquity 
and  uncleanness  on  the  bread  and  cup  of  the  Lord  ?  " 

Now  it  is  quite  true,  that  neither  in  these  passages,  nor  in 
the  rest  of  the  Homily,  is  the  expression  used,  "  under  the 
form  of  bread  and  wine ;  "  but  the  point  to"  be  considered  is, 
whether  the  same  thing  is  not  taught  in  other  words — whether 
a  Real  Objective  Presence  in  the  Sacrament  is  not  distinctly 
set  forth  in  the  language  of  these  extracts.  It  may  well 

*  Is  not  this  precisely  the  same  idea  as  that  conveyed  in  the  Prayer  of  Access, 
contained  in  all  the  Prayer  Books,  from  154 &  to  1662,  "Grant  us  therefore, 
gracious  Lord,  SO  to  eat  the  flesh  of  Thy  dear  Son  Jesus  Christ,  and  to  drink 
His  blood  [1549,  in  these  holy  Mysteries,  that  we  may  continually  dwell  in  Him 
and  He  in  us]  that  our  sinful  bodies  may  be  made  clean  by  His  Body,  and  our 
souls  washed  through  His  most  precious  blood.  [1552-1662,  and  that  we  may 
evermore  dwell  in  Him  and  He  in  us].  Amen."  Of  what  use  is  the  word,  SO, 
unless  it  means  that  there  is  a  right  and  a  wrong  way  of  partaking  of  the  same 
thing— that  Thing  being  the  Body  and  Blood  of  Christ  ? 


165 

enough  have  been  that,  in  a  Homily  meant  to  be  put  out  for 
popular  instruction,  Cranmer  may  have  thought  it  desirable 
to  drop  that  particular  formula  which  to  the  popular  mind 
conveyed  then  a  false  notion,  and  which  was  again  and  again 
employed  by  Gardiner  and  others,  at  that  very  time,  to  sus- 
tain their  own  views.  But  the  absence  of  the  particular  ex- 
pression can  be  no  reliable  proof  that  it  was  rejected, 
especially  when  Cranmer' s  Catechism  was  still  in  circulation; 
and  there  is  nothing  to  show  (so  far  as  I  am  aware)  that  he 
wished  to  cancel  that  same  expression  which  he  had  then 
used. 

Of  course  if  it  can  be  shewn  that  this  Homily  was  not 
written  by  Cranmer*  or  with  his  sanction,  but  was  prepared 
or  altered  by  Parker,  or  under  his  authority,  my  argument  so 
far  fails,  that  nothing  can  be  drawn  one  way  or  other  from 
this  later  Homily  as  regards  Abp.  Cranmer's  views  :  but  then 
it  simply  leaves  his  previous  opinions  untouched  and  becomes 
a  standard  by  which  to  test  only  the  mind  of  the  Ecclesias- 
tical Authorities  of  the  beginning  of  Elizabeth's  reign,  instead 
of  the  intentions  of  the  Episcopal  Rulers  of  the  latter  years 
of  the  reign  of  Edward  6th. 

I  have  urged  Cranmer's  employment  of  the  phrase  "  under 
the  form  of  bread  and  wine/'  in  his  Catechism,  as  disproving 
the  theory  that  he  abandoned  that  formula  subsequently  to 
his  use  of  it  in  the  Advertisement  of  the  1st  Book  of  Homilies. 
Yet  it  may  be  contended,  perhaps,  that  Cranmer  was  still  in 
his  "  error  of  the  real  presence  "  when  he  published  the 
Catechism ;  for  that,  as  Strype  mentions  (bk.  ii.,  c.  5,) 

"  Bishop  Gardiner,  in  bis  book  against  the  Archbishop,  takes  ad- 
vantage of  two  things  in  this  Catechism  against  him,  as  though  he 
himself,  when  he  put  it  forth,  was  of  the  opinion  of  the  corporal 
presence." 

The  "  two  things,"  Strype  adds  ( Ib. )  were  these : — 

*  Though  some  proof  of  its  being  his  may  perhaps  be  found  in  the  fact  of  its 
containing  the  same  passage  from  Emebius  Emissenus  ("  When  thou  goest  up  to 
the  reverend  communion,"  &c.)  which  Cranmer  quoted  in  his  "  Defence  of  the 
True  and  Catholic  Doctrine  of  the  Sacrament,"  and  upon  which  he  lays  muck 
stress  in  his  "  Answer  to  Gardiner,"  p.  228. 


166 

"  The  one  was  a  picture  that  stood  before  the  book,  where  was  an 
altar  with  candles  lighted,  and  the  priest  apparelled  after  the  old 
sort,  putting  the  wafer  into  the  communicant's  mouth.  The  other 
is  an  expression  or  two  used  somewhere  in  the  book,  '  that  with  our 
bodily  mouths  we  receive  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ :'  and,  '  that 
in  the  Sacrament  we  receive  truly  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ :' 
and  *  this  we  must  believe,  if  we  will  be  counted  Christian  men.' " 

That  Strype  did  not  believe  the  accusation  to  be  well  foun- 
ded, is  plain  from  his  thus  continuing  his  account : — 

"  But  to  both  Cranmer  in  his  next  book  against  Gardiner,  made 
answer,  '  That  as  for  the  picture,  it  was  that  was  set  before  the  Dutch 
Edition  of  the  book,  and  so  none  of  his  doing  ;  but  that  he  after- 
wards caused  the  Popish  picture*  to  be  altered  into  a  picture  repre- 
senting Christ  eating  His  last  supper  with  His  disciples.  *  As  for 
the  expressions,'  he  said,  '  he  taught,  that  we  in  the  Sacrament  do 
receive  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ  spiritually ;  and,  that  the  words 
really  and  substantially  were  not  used,  but  truly?  And  in  his 
answer  to  Dr.  Richard  Smith's  preface,  wrote  against  the  said  Arch- 
bishop, who  it  seems  had  twitted  him  also  with  this  Catechism,  he 
spake  largely  of  these  his  expressions  in  his  own  vindication."  f 

*  Lest  it  should  be  inferred  from  this  that  Cranmer  was  opposed  to  the  Lights 
and  Vestments  (and  not  merely  to  the  picture  as  upholding  the  then  popular 
view  of  the  Mass  as  distinct  from  the  Communion)  it  may  be  well  to  add  here 
the  following  extract  from  a  letter  of  "  Martin  Bucer  and  Paul  Fagius  to  the 
Ministers  at  Strasburgh,  dated  at  Lambeth  April  26,  1549  :"  after  saying  "We 
yesterday  waited  upon  the  Archbishop  of  Canterbury,  that  most  benevolent  and 
kind  father  of  the  Churches  and  of  godly  men ;  who  received  and  entertains  us 
as  brethren,"  they  continue  thus — "  The  cause  of  religion,  as  far  as  appertains 
to  the  establishment  of  doctrines,  and  the  definition  of  rites,  is  pretty  near  what 
could  be  wished  [here  they  mention  the  need  of  a  suitable  ministry]  as  soon  as 
the  description  of  the  ceremonies  now  in  use  shall  have  been  translated  into 
Latin,  we  will  send  it  to  you.  We  hear  that  some  concessions  have  been  made 
both  to  a  respect  for  antiquity,  and  to  the  infirmity  of  the  present  age ;  such,  for 
instance,  as  the  vestments  commonly  used  in  the  Sacrament  of  the  Eucharist, 
and  the  use  of  Candles :  so  also  in  regard  to  the  commemoration  of  the  dead,  and 
the  use  of  chrism  ;  for  we  know  not  to  what  extent  or  in  what  sort  it  prevails. 
They  affirm  that  there  is  no  superstition  in  these  things,  and  that  they  are  only 
to  be  retained  for  a  time,  lest  the  people,  not  having  yet  learned  Christ,  should 
be  deterred  by  too  extensive  innovations  from  embracing  His  religion,  and  that 
rather  they  may  be  won  over.  This  circumstance  however  greatly  refreshed  us, 
that  all  the  services  in  the  Churches  are  read  and  sung  in  the  vernacular  tongue, 
that  the  doctrine  of  justification  is  purely  and  soundly  taught,  and  the  Eucharist 
administered  according  to  Christ's  ordinance,  private  masses  having  been 
abolished 

*'  At  Lambeth,  from  the  house  of  the  Archbishop  of  Canterbury,  near  London." 
— Orig.  Letters,  p.  535. 

f  The  precise  words  of  Cranmer  to  Gardiner  are  these — "  And  as  concerning 
the  Catechism,  I  have  sufficiently  answered  in  my  former  book  [see  p.  159.] 
But  in  this  place  may  appear  to  them  that  have  any  judgment,  what  pithy 
arguments  you  make,  and  what  dexterity  you  have  in  gathering  of  author's 
minds,  that  would  gather  my  mind  and  make  an  argument  here  of  a  picture, 
neither  put  in  my  book,  nor  by  me  devised,  but  invented  by  some  fond  painter 


167 

Strype  appears  to  have  made  some  mistake  in  quoting 
Cranmer  as  to  the  expressions  in  his  Catechism ;  at  least  I 
have  not  succeeded  in  finding,  either  in  his  Answer  to 
Gardiner  or  in  his  Reply  to  Smith  the  language  here  attributed 
to  him :  there  are  five  places  in  the  former  where  reference 
is  made  to  the  Catechism  viz.  pp.  20,  188,  190,  226  and  227, 
(Parker  Soc.  Ed.)  but  in  neither  of  them  does  Cranmer 
make  the  answer  here  imputed  to  him :  Gardiner,  indeed, 
(p.  20)  says, 

"Justus  Jonas  hath  translated  a  Catechism  out  of  Dutch  into 
Latin,  taught  in  the  city  of  Nuremburg  in  Germany,  where  Hosi- 
ander  is  chief  preacher,  in  which  catechism  they  be  accounted  for  no 
true  Christian  men,  that  deny  the  presence  of  Christ's  body  in  the 
Sacrament.  The  words  '  really '  and {  substantially*  be  not  expressed 
as  they  be  in  Bucer,  but  the  word  'truly'  is  there,  and,  as  Bucer 
saith,  that  is  substantially.  Which  catechism  was  translated  into 
English  in  this  author's  name  [i.e.  Cranmer]  about  two  years  past." 

But  Cranmer  gives  no  reply  whatever  to  this,  whereas 
Strype  apparently  makes  him  repudiate  the  words  "  really  " 
and  "  substantially."  It  is  easy,  indeed,  to  understand  that 
the  Archbishop  may  have  been  all  the  better  pleased  to  trans- 

or  carver,  which  paint  and  grave  whatsoever  their  idle  heads  can  fancy.  You 
should  rather  have  gathered  your  argument  upon  the  other  side,  that  I  mislike 
the  matter,  because  I  left  out  of  my  book  the  picture  that  was  in  the  original 
before.  And  I  marvel  you  be  not  ashamed  to  allege  so  vain  a  matter  against  me, 
which  indeed  is  not  in  my  book,  and  if  it  were,  yet  were  it  nothing  to  the  pur- 
pose." Then  follows  the  passage  quoted  at  p.  159,  "  And  in  that  Catechism," 
&c. — Ans.  to  Gardiner,  p.  227. 

The  Archbishop's  answer  to  Smith  (who  had  said  that  "  Peter  Martyr  at  his 
first  coming  to  Oxford,  when  he  was  but  a  Lutheran  in  this  matter,  taught  as  D. 
Smith  now  doth.  But  when  he  came  once  to  the  court,  and  saw  that  doctrine 
misliked  them  that  might  do  him  hurt  in  his  living,  he  anon  after  turned  his 
tippet,  and  sang  another  song")  is  in  these  words :  — 

"  Of  M.  Peter  Martyr's  opinion  and  judgment  in  this  matter,  no  man  can 
better  testify  than  I ;  forasmuch  as  he  lodged  within  my  house  long  before  he 
came  to  Oxford,  and  I  had  with  him  many  conferences  in  that  matter,  and  know 
that  he  was  then  of  the  same  mind  that  he  is  now,  and  as  he  defended  after 
openly  in  Oxford,  and  hath  written  in  his  book.  And  if  D.  Smith  understood 
him  otherwise  in  his  lectures  at  the  beginning,  it  was  for  lack  of  knowledge,  for 
that  then  D.  Smith  understood  not  the  matter,  nor  yet  doth  not,  as  it  appeareth. 
by  this  foolish  and  unlearned  book,  which  he  hath  now  set  out :  no  more  than 
he  understood  my  book  of  the  Catechism,  and  therefore  reporteth  untruly  of  me, 
that  I  in  that  book  did  set  forth  the  real  presence  of  Christ's  body  in  the  Sacra- 
ment. Unto  which  false  report  I  have  answered  in  my  fourth  book,  the  eighth 
chapter,"  (i.e.  the  reply  to  Gardiner  just  quoted.)  Then  follows  the  passage 
"  But  this  I  confess  of  myself,"  &c.,  (see  p.  155).—  Works.  Parker  Society,  ii. 
p.  374. 


168 

late  a  catechism  in  which  these  words  were  not  used,  con- 
sidering the  way  in  which  many  of  the  Roman  party  were 
continually  employing  them  to  express  that  notion  of  a 
physical  presence  which  he  was  ever  combating  ;*  and  if  he 
did  in  fact  prefer  the  word  "  truly,"  this  is  no  sort  of  proof 
that  he  objected  to  the  other  terms  when  not  used  in  a  carnal 
sense ;  especially  when,  as  I  have  shewn  at  p.  62,  those  and 
other  equivalent  words  were  admitted  to  be  legitimate  by 
Cranmer,  Ridley,  and  others,  in  the  course  of  the  Eucharistic 
controversy, 

It  may,  morever,  be  satisfactory  to  point  out  how  the 
charge  respecting  the  Catechism  has  been  dealt  with  by  Dr. 
Burton,  who,  in  his  Preface  to  the  Oxford  Edition  of  this 
Catechism  1829  (pp.  xxi.  to  xxv.,)  after  quoting  the  passage 
from  Cranmer  relative  to  the  picture  (a  fac-simile  of  which 
he  gives  at  p.  174  of  the  Latin  Edition)  and  remarking  that  "  the 
Protestant  reader  will  scarcely  observe  any  thing  which  could 
justly  have  called  for  these  remarks,"  says  : — 

"  The  Plate,  which  Cranmer  introduced  [viz.  a  Picture  of  our 
Lord  and  the  Twelve  sitting  at  a  table ;  from  a  design  by  Hans 
Holbein  who  was  then  in  England]  instead  of  the  one  objected  to  by 
Gardiner,  will  be  found  in  p.  204  of  the  English  Catechism,  and  is 
totally  different  from  that  in  the  Latin.  But  though  his  answer  is  so 
far  completely  satisfactory,  it  must  still  be  acknowledged,  and 
Cranmer  himself  confessed,  that  he  did  not  all  at  once  shake  off  his 
former  errors.  The  language,  which  is  held  concerning  the  real 
presence,  in  p.  208  of  the  English  Catechism  [i.e.  the  passage  com- 
mencing "  For  God  is  Almighty,"  &c.]  is  extremly  strong.  The 
author  of  the  Latin  Catechism  was  undoubtedly  a  Lutheran  and  held 
consubstantiation,  Cranmer  is  supposed  at  this  time  to  have  held  the 
same  doctrine ;  though  the  difference  is  remarkable,  as  has  been 
already  stated, -j-  between  the  English  and  Latin  Catechisms,  the 

*  e.g.  in  this  part  (as  in  many  other  places)  of  his  answer  to  Gardiner  (who 
had  claimed  Luther,  Bucer,  Jonas,  Melancthon  GBpinua  in  favour  of  his  own 
view)  Cranmer  says :  — "  And  yet  not  one  of  these  new  men  (whom  you  allege) 
do  thoroughly  agree  with  your  doctrine  ....  For  they  affirm  not  such  a 
gross  presence  of  Christ's  body,  as  expelleth  the  substance  of  bread,  and  is  made 
by  conversion  thereof  into  the  substance  of  Christ's  body,  and  is  eaten  with  the 
mouth." 

f  Page  xviii.  where,  referring  to  p.  208  of  his  Edition  of  the  English  Catechism, 
he  remarks  "  We  may  observe  however  that  here  it  is,  *  we  receyve  trewly  the 
bodye  and  blood  of  Christ :'  but  in  the  Latin,  p.  177,  it  is,  '  quod  vere  corpus  et 
sanguia  ejus  sit.' " 


169 

latter  speaking  of  the  Body  and  Blood  of  Christ  being  present  in  the 
Sacrament,  the  latter  [sic  query  former']  only  of  our  receiving  them. 
Cranmer  was  charged  in  his  own  day  with  having  been  first  a 
Papist,  then  a  Lutheran,  and  lastly  a  Zwinglian,  in  his  opinion  con- 
cerning the  Sacrament :  and  Gardiner  made  much  of  the  contradic- 
tions which  appeared  between  the  Catechism  of  1548,  and  the  De- 
fence of  the  Sacrament,  which  was  published  in  1550.  The  same 
inconsistency  appears  to  have  been  pointed  out  by  Dr.  Richard 
Smith  in  the  Preface  to  a  work,  which  he  wrote  against  Cranmer's 
Defence,  and  which  was  entitled,  Confutation  of  a  certain  Book 
called,  A  Defence,  &c.  The  Archbishop  answered  this  Preface,  and 
after  saying  that  the  writer  of  it  misunderstood  Peter  Martyr's  senti- 
ments, he  adds,  '  No  more  than  he  understood  my  book  of  the 
Catechism,'  &c. — (See  Note,  p.  167.) 

"  But  the  heaviest  charge  was  brought  against  Cranmer  by  Dr. 
Martin,  in  his  examination  at  Oxford ;  in  which  he  accused  him  not 
only  of  versatility,  but  of  actual  dishonesty.  Part  of  this  dialogue 
has  already  been  alluded  to  at  p.  vi.  [viz,  in  a  quotation  from  Fox, 
Acts  and  Monuments,  vol.  ii.,  p.  1877.  ed.  1583.]  ;  but  the  whole 
of  it  is  as  follows, 

"  *  Martin.  When  King  Henrye  dyed,  did  you  not  translate  Justus 
Jonas  book  ? 

"  *  Cranmer.    I  did  so. 

"  '  Martin.  Then  there  you  defended  an  other  doctrine  touching 
the  Sacraments,  by  the  same  token  that  you  sent  to  Lynne  your 
printer,  that  where  as  in  the  first  printe  there  was  an  affirmative, 
that  is  to  say,  Christes  body  reallye  in  the  Sacramente,  you  sent 
then  to  your  prynter  to  put  in  a  not,  whereby  it  came  miraculously 
to  passe  that  Chrysts  bodye  was  cleane  conveyed  out  of  the  Sacra- 
ment. 

"  •'  Cranmer.  I  remember  there  was  two  Prynters  of  my  sayde 
booke,  but  where  the  same  not  was  put  in,  I  cannot  tell.' 

"  It  is  impossible  to  say,  to  which  sentence  in  the  Sermon  on  the 
Lord's  Supper  Dr.  Martin  alluded  ;  for  though  we  find  the  words, 
'  we  receyve  trewly  the  bodye  and  bloud,'  and  '  we  eat  his  veray 
bodye,'  yet  the  word  'reallye'  does  not  occur  throughout  the  whole  of 
it :  and  if  the  reader  will  look  to  all  the  places,  which  appear  to  favour 
the  real  presence,  he  will  find  it  almost  impossible  for  the  word  not  to 
have  been  inserted.  Cranmer,  it  is  true,  does  not  actually  deny  the 
insertion,  but  his  words  may  mean,  that  if  it  was  made,  it  was  with- 
out his  knowledge  ;  and  certainly  no  copy  of  the  Catechism  has  as 
yet  been  produced,  which  contains  the  negative.  It  has  been  stated, 
that  one  of  the  Bodleian  copies  appears  evidently  to  be  a  different 
edition  from  the  others ;  but  the  negative  does  not  occur  in  it ;  and 
the  passage,  to  which  Gardiner  alluded,  as  quoted  at  p.  xix.,*  is 

*  viz.  "  '  We  receave  in  the  Sacrament  the  body  of  Christ  with  our  mouthe, 
and  such  speache  other  use,  as  a  booke  set  forth  in  the  archbishoppe  of  Canter- 
buries name  called  a  Catechisme,  willeth  children  to  be  taught  that  they  receave 

Z 


170 

not  altered.  This  copy  contains  no  list  of  Errata :  but  in  the  other 
copies,  the  word  not  is  ordered  to  be  inserted  in  the  place  which 
corresponds  to  page  139,  line  1,*  of  this  Edition,  where  it  is 
evidently  wanted ;  but  we  can  hardly  suppose  Dr.  Martin  to  have 
confounded  the  two  places.  Strype  (Memorials  of  Cranmer,  p.  396) 
has  certainly  gone  too  far,  when  he  said,  '  In  a  second  edition  the 
word  not  was  inserted  in  a  certain  place  of  the  book,  to  alter  the 
doctrine  of  the  real  presence,  which  was  asserted  in  the  first  edition.' 
He  appears  to  have  taken  this  from  the  dialogue  with  Dr.  Martin, 
in  which  nothing  is  said  of  a  second  edition  ;  and  upon  the  whole 
there  is  great  reason  to  conclude,  that  the  charge  was  altogether 
unfounded."  -j- 

In  a  Note  Dr.  Burton  further  says  : — 

"  It  is  not  impossible,  that  Dr.  Martin  may  have  remembered  a 
passage  in  Gardiner's  Answer  to  Cranmer's  book  upon  the  Sacra- 
ment, in  which,  after  criticising  Cranmer's  version  of  a  passage  in 
Theodoret,  he  says,  '  I  wene  the  Printer  left  out  a  (not)  and  should 
have  sayd,  not  changed  into  the  godly  substance,'  p.  125.  Cranmer 
denies  that  he  or  his  Printer  had  made  this  omission,  p.  322  ;  and 
since  the  doctrine  of  transubstantiation  formed  the  subject  of  dispute 
Dr.  Martin  may  have  confounded  Cranmer's  Defence  of  the  Sacra- 
ment with  his  Catechism." 

In  further  confirmation  of  these  statements  of  Strype  and 
Dr,  Burton  (which  I  have  quoted  to  show  that  Cranmer 
adhered  to  the  doctrine  of  his  Catechism.)  I  cannot  do 
better  than  cite  the  language  of  a  recent  author J  whose  doc- 
trinal views  are  entirely  on,  what  is  called  "  The  Evangelical 
side,"  but  whose  candour  obliges  him  to  deny  that  they  can 
find  support  from  the  Prayer  Book  on  the  disputed  questions 
touching  the  Sacraments :  speaking  of  Cranmer's  views  on 
Baptism,  Mr.  Fisher  says : — 

"  We  have  in  the  'Answer  to  Gardiner, 'as  well  as  in  the  aforesaid 
1  Answer  to  Smythe's  Preface9  a  complete  authentication  of  the  Cate- 

with  their  bodily  mouth  the  hody  and  bloud  of  Christ,  which  I  allege  because  it 
shall  appear  it  is  a  teaching  set  forth  among  us  of  late  as  hath  heen  also  and 
is  hy  the  booke  of  comen  prayer  beyng  the  most  true  Catholique  doctrine  of  the 
substance  of  the  Sacrement,  in  that  it  is  then  so  Catholiquely  spoken  of,  whiche 
booke  this  auctor  doth  after  specially  allow,  howsoever  all  the  summe  of  his 
teachyng  doth  improve  it  in  that  point.'  " 


*  viz.,  in  the  Instruction  on  "  The  First  Petition"  of  the  Lord's  Praye 
"  *  The  name  of  God  is  halowed  also,  but  lytle  regarded  and  contemned,  when 
the  gospel  and  worde  of  God,  is  not  boldely  professed  before  the  worlde.' " 

f  Strype  does,  indeed,  defend  Cranmer  by  adding— "But  the  Archbishop 
professed  his  ignorance  concerning  the  foisting  in  of  that  word.  The  addition  of 
which  word,  indeed,  he  thought  was  needless ;  still  holding  the  body  and  blood 
truly  present  in  the  holy  supper,  though  after  a  spiritual  manner." — Cranmer 
p.  396. 

J  Liturgical  Purity  our  Eightful  Inheritance,  by  J.  C.  Fisher,  Esq.,  Lond.    1857. 


171 

chism,'  as  being  in  the  main  a  faithful  exponent  of  the  Archbishop's 
sentiments,  not  only  in  1548,  but  even  so  late  as  the  close  of  the 
year  1551 — the  very  time,  be  it  remembered,  when  under  the 
especial  superintendence  of  Cranmer,  the  Second  Service  Book  of 
Edward  VI.  was  actually  in  the  course  of  preparation." — p.  169. 

Again,  referring  to  the  Archbishop's  opinion  on  the  Real 
Presence,  his  words  are  : — 

"  .  .  .  he  does  not  seem  to  have  finally  renounced  the  figment  of 
the  'corporal  presence'  until  about  the  year  1548.  And  it  is- 
further  evident,  both  from  the  Communion  Office  of  1552  and  the 
disputations  subsequently  held  at  Oxford,  that  both  he  and  Ridley 
maintained,  to  the  very  last,  the  real  presence  of  Christ  in  the 
Eucharist ;  understanding  the  term  *  real,'  not  of  course  in  its 
natural,  but  in  its  true  and  more  appropriate  sacramental  import."* 
— Fisher  p.  168. 

It  may  help  to  bring  out  more  clearly  Cranmer's  view  at 
this  time,  if  we*compare  it  with  HOOPER'S  account  of  his 
own  opinion  on  the  subject  at  the  same  period  ;  writing  to 
Martin  Bucer  from  Zurich,  June  19,  1548,  after  telling  him 
that  some  "  depart  from  your  opinion  in  the  matter  of 
Eucharist,  as  I  do  myself,"  he  thus  continues,  later  in  the 
Letter  :— 

"  You  write  word,  reverend  sir,  that  you  cannot  believe  the 
sacraments  to  be  bare  signs.  Far  be  such  a  belief  from  the  most 
unlearned  Christian !  The  Holy  Supper  is  not  a  bare  sign,  neither 

in  it  is  the  true  and  natural  body  of  Christ  exhibited  to  me  in 

any  Supernatural  or  heavenly  manner  :  nevertheless,  I  religiously 
and  with  all  honour  venerate  and  reverence  the  institution  of  Christ 
upon  other  grounds,  because  it  is  a  sign  of  the  good-will  of  God 
towards  me,  and  an  outward  testimony  added  to  the  promise  of 
grace.  Not  that  this  promise  is  applied  to  me  by  means  of  any 
sacrament,  but  because  the  promise  previously  applied  to  me  by 
faith  is  thereby  confirmed.  In  like  manner  the  Church  of  God  pub- 
lickly  receives  him  in  baptism,  who  had  been  previously  received  by 

grace Thus  the  holy  supper  is  a  testimony  of  grace,  and 

a  mystery  of  our  redemption,  in  which  God  bears  witness  to  the 
benefits  bestowed  upon  us  by  Christ :  not  that  the  remission  of  sins, 
which  in  believers  ought  to  precede  all  use  of  sacraments,  is  there 
applied ;  nor  that  the  true  body  of  Christ,  which  is  in  heaven  and 

not  on  earth,  is  exhibited  together  with  the  bread ;  but  that  it 

may  confirm  that  faith  which  I  have  in  the  death  and  passion  of  that 

*  "  This  was  the  doctrine  of  Ratramn,  by  whose  writings  it  is  well  known 
that  the  views  of  Cranmer  and  Ridley  were  considerably  influenced."— See  Foxe, 
vol.  ii.,p.  1610. 


172 

body  which  was  alive,  died,  and  rose  again.  And  the  minister  gives 
what  is  in  his  power,  namely,  the  bread  and  wine,  and  not  the 

body  of  Christ;  nor  is  it  exhibited  by  the  minister,  and  eaten  by 

the  communicant,  otherwise  than  in  the  word  preached,  read,  or 
meditated  upon.  And  to  eat  the  body  of  Christ  is  nothing  else  than 
to  believe,  as  he  himself  teaches  in  the  sixth  of  John.  It  is  neces- 
sary therefore  to  bring  Christ  to  the  sacrament  by  faith,  and  not  to 
look  for  him  there.  And  thus  the  promise  of  grace  is  received  by 
faith,  as  are  also  the  Sacraments,  of  which  faith  they  are  the  testi- 
monies and  the  seals.  There  are  many  other  ends,  but  this  is  the 
chief;  and  those  who  thus  use  the  sacraments  do  not  make  them  bare 
signs.  Thus  John  the  Baptist  said,  that  he  baptized  with  water,  but  that 
there  was  one  to  come  after  him  who  should  baptize  with  the  Holy 
Ghost.  He  had  water  in  his  hand,  by  which  remission  of  sins  was 
confirmed  in  those  who  believed  ;  but  he  had  not  in  his  hand  the 
Holy  Ghost,  that  he  might  give  remission  of  sins  to  all  that  were 
baptized  ;  for  he  baptized  many  hypocrites.  From  these  sensible 
objects  therefore  faith  teaches  us  to  recognize  things  insensible  and 
invisible.  Regard  these  things,  I  pray  you,  in  a  godly  spirit.  1  do 
not  write  for  sake  of  dispute,  but  that  I  may  testify  to  you,  that  the 
sacraments  with  us  are  not  bare  signs.  For  if  faith  shine  forth  in 
the  mind  of  the  recipient,  the  bridegroom  is  thereby  joined*  to  the 
bride,  so  that  none  may  put  asunder  what  God  hath  joined  together 
"—Original  Letters,  pp.  47-48. 

Next  to  (perhaps  even  as  much  as)  the  Roman  doctrine,  what 
Hooper  seems  to  have  dreaded  was  the  Lutheran  belief:  for 
in  a  Letter  to  "  Henry  Bullwger"  dated  at  Antwerp,  April 
26,  1549,  he  thus  expresses  his  fears  : — 

" .  .  .  .  I  hear  that  East  Friesland  has  received  the  Interim. 
If  this  be  the  case,  master  &  Lasco  will  soon  return  into  England.  I 
greatly  regret  his  absence,  especially  as  Peter  Martyr  and  Bernar- 
dine  so  stoutly  defend  Lutheranism,  and  there  is  now  arrived  a  third, 
(1  mean  Bucer,)  who  will  leave  no  stone  unturned  to  obtain  a  foot- 
ing. The  people  of  England,  as  I  hear,  all  of  them  entertain  right 
notions  upon  that  subject  .  .  .  ." — Original  Letters,  p.  61. 

In  estimating  Cranmer's  Eucharistic  views  at  this  time,  it 
would  be  a  great  omission  not  to  take  into  account  the 
Prayer  Book  of  1549  (for  which  he  was  mainly  responsible) 
and  the  opinions  entertained  of  it  by  those  opposed  to  him  on 
the  Roman  side.  I  have  already  (p.  9)  referred  generally  to 
Gardiner's  statements,  in  proof  that  he  considered  its  lan- 
guage an  adequate  expression  of  ancient  doctrine:  the  fol- 

*  ["  The  word  is  illegible  in  the  MS."] 


173 

lowing  passage,  which  is  Gardiner's  reply  to  a  question  on  the 
subject,  is  to  the  purpose,  as  illustrating  this  point:  he  said, 
(and  they  are  the  words  of  a  most  unwilling  witness),  that — 

"  .  .  .  .  That  book  he  could  not  have  made  after  that  form,  but, 
as  it  was,  he  could  with  his  conscience  keep  it,  and  cause  others 
in  his  diocese  to  keep  it,  and  diligently  see  that  it  should  be  kept, 
and  the  offenders  punished " — Foxe,  vi.,  p.  114. 

On  the  other  hand,  it  would  be  unfair  to  pass  over  such  a 
letter  as  the  following,  which  claims  the  Archbishop  as  a  con- 
vert, at  that  very  time,  to  opinions  of  a  much  more  advanced 
character  in  the  direction  of  the  Swiss  school :  it  is  from 

"John  Hooper  to  Henry  Bullinger,  London,  December  27,   1549. 

"  .  .  .  .  The  Archbishop  of  Canterbury  entertains  right  views  as  to 
the  nature  of  Christ's  presence  .in  the  supper,  and  is  now  very 
friendly  towards  myself.  He  has  some  articles  of  religion,  to  which 
all  preachers  and  lecturers  in  divinity  are  required  to  subscribe,  or 
else  a  license  for  teaching  is  not  granted  them  ;  and  in  these  his 
sentiments  respecting  the  Eucharist  are  pure,  and  religious,  and 
similar  to  yours  in  Switzerland.  We  desire  nothing  more  from  him 
than  a  firm  and  manly  spirit.  Like  all  the  other  Bishops  in  this 
country,  he  is  too  fearful  about  what  may  happen  to  him.  There 
are  here  six*  or  seven  Bishops,  who  comprehend  the  doctrine 
of  Christ,  as  far  as  relates  to  the  Lord's  Supper,  with  as  much  clear- 
ness and  piety  as  one  could  desire,  and  it  is  only  the  fear  for  their 
property  that  prevents  them  from  reforming  their  Churches  ac- 
cording to  the  rule  of  God's  word.  The  altars  are  here  in  many 
Churches  changed  into  tables.  The  public  celebration  of  the  Lord's 
Supper  is  very  far  from  the  order  and  institution  of  our  Lord. 
Although  it  is  administered  in  both  kinds,  yet  in  some  places  the 
Supper  is  celebrated  three  times  a  day.  Where  they  used  hereto- 
fore to  celebrate  in  the  morning  the  Mass  of  the  Apostles,  they  now 
have  the  Communion  of  the  Apostles  ;  where  they  had  the  Mass  of 
the  Blessed  Virgin,  they  now  have  the  Communion,  which  they  call 
the  Communion  of  the  Virgin ;  where  they  had  the  principal,  or  high 
Mass,  they  now  have,  as  they  call  it,  the  high  Communion.  They 
still  retain  their  vestments,  and  the  candles  before  the  altars  ;  in  the 
Churches  they  always  chant  the  hours  and  other  hymns  relating  to 
the  Lord's  Supper,  but  in  our  own  language.  And  that  Popery 
may  not  be  lost,  the  Mass-priests,  although  they  are  compelled  to 
discontinue  the  use  of  the  Latin  language,  yet  most  carefully  observe 

*  "[It  appears  by  the  following  letter,  that  the  Bishops  here  referred  to  were 
Cranmer,  of  Canterbury ;  Ridley,  of  Rochester ;  Goodrich,  of  Ely ;  Farrar,  of 
St.  David's ;  Holbeach,  of  Lincoln ;  and  Barlow,  of  Bath.]  " 


174 

the  same  tone  and  manner  of  chanting  to  which  they  were  heretofore 
accustomed  in  the  papacy.  God  knows  to  what  perils  and  anxieties 

we  are  exposed,  by  reason  of  men  of  this  kind " — Original 

Letters,  p.  71. 

A  month  later,  Hooper,  writing  again  to  Bullinger,  (Feb. 
5,  1549-50)  repeats  his  opinion  of  Cramner's  Eucharistic 
doctrine,  in  the  following  letter  : — 

"  ....  At  Court  I  have  been  lecturing  upon  the  Psalms,  and  God 

knows  at  what  risk  I  interpreted  the  Sixth  Chapter  of  St.  John 

Now  as  to  what  is  doing  in  England.  The  Bishops  of  Canterbury, 
Rochester,  Ely,  St.  David's,  Lincoln,  and  Bath,  are  all  favourable  to 
the  cause  of  Christ ;  and,  as  far  as  I  know,  entertain  right  opinions 
in  the  matter  of  the  Eucharist.  I  have  freely  conversed  with  all  of 
them  upon  this  subject,  and  have  discovered  nothing  but  what 
is  pure  and  holy.  The  Archbishop  of  Canterbury,  who  is  at  the 
head  of  the  King's  Council,  gives  to  all  lecturers  and  preachers,  their 
license  to  read  and  preach ;  every  one  of  them,  however,  must  pre- 
viously subscribe  to  certain  Articles,  which,  if  possible,  1  will  send 
you,  one  of  which,  respecting  the  Eucharist,  is  plainly  the  true  one, 
and  that  which  you  maintain  in  Switzerland." — Original  Letters, 
pp.  75  and  76. 

Now,  fortunately,  both  these  letters  (though  apparently 
unfavourable  to  the  opinion  which  I  am  advocating — that 
Cranmer  at  this  time  held  the  doctrine  of  a  Real  Objective 
Presence  in,  or  at  least  in  the  ministration  of  the  Eucharist) 
furnish  a  definite  test  of  the  Archbishop's  views,  and  one 
which  is  much  more  satisfactory  than  the  personal  opinions 
of  those  of  his  contemporaries  who  wished  to  prove  his  views 
to  be  consistent  with  their  own.  It  will  be  seen  that  Hooper 
speaks  in  both  letters,  of  " certain,"  or  "some  articles  of 
religion,"  to  be  subscribed  by  preachers  and  teachers  :  these 
Articles  (mainly  based,  probably,  on  the  13  Articles  of  1538) 
were  in  fact,  as  seems  now  pretty  well  established,  an  earlier 
draft  of  the  42  Articles  of  1552 :  the  Article  "respecting  the 
Eucharist,"  to  which  Hooper  refers,  would  therefore  be  the 
original  casting  of  the  29th  Article  of  1552  (see  p.  32): 
whether  the  language  was  the  same  at  both  dates,  there 
seems  no  mode  of  ascertaining,  but  while  such  is  probably 
the  case  (considering  the  attention  which  Cranmer  and  Ridley 


175 

had  paid  to  the  Eucharistic  question  before  1549,)  it  may 
safely  be  concluded  that  the  Eucharistic  Article  of  which 
Hooper  speaks,  was  not  framed  in  less  Catholic  language  than 
that  of  1552  ;  and  as  we  know  (see  p.  119,)  that  Hooper,  in 
his  Visitation  Articles,  modified  an  important  expression  of 
that  Article  to  suit  his  own  doctrinal  view,  so  it  is'  a  most  fair 
conjecture  (to  say  the  least)  that  the  Archbishop's  Article  of 
of  1549  was  not  necessarily  designed  to  bear  the  interpre- 
tation which  Hooper  put  upon  it,  when  he  asserted  it  to 
teach  "  that  which  you,  "  Bullinger,  "  maintain  in  Switzer- 
land." What  its  language  was  apparently  meant  to  teach, 
and  did  convey,  has  already  been  considered  at  pp.  114-18; 
and  if  such  was  Cranmer's  belief  in  1552,  it  may  most  safely 
be  asserted  to  have  been  his  belief  in  1549-50. 

It  is  very  commonly  assumed  that  Cranmer's  opinions  at 
this  time  were  much  influenced  by  those  of  Bucer,  and  that 
the  changes  made  in  the  Prayer  Book  of  1552  were  mainly 
due  to  his  interference  ;  how  little  ground  there  is  for  the  latter 
supposition  has  been  already  pointed  out  at  p.  100  ;  moreover, 
it  should  be  remembered  that  Bucer  died  at  Cambridge, 
February  27,  1550-1.  (Original  Letters,  pt.  1  ;  pp.  490  and 
495.)  Supposing,  however,  the  assumption  to  be  true,  it  is 
worth  while  to  see  in  what  direction  Bucer  would  have  led 
the  Archbishop,  on  the  subject  of  the  Eucharistic  Presence, 
in  1550:  commenting  upon  P.  Martyr's  Disputation  at  Ox- 
ford (quoted  at  pp.  9  to  13)  he  thus  speaks  in  a  letter  "to 
Brentius,  dated  at  Cambridge,  May  15,  1550":  — 

"  ....  1  am  as  sorry  for  Master  Martyr's  book  as  any  one  can 
be  ;  but  that  disputation  took  place,  and  the  propositions  *  were 
agreed  upon,  before  I  arrived  in  England.  At  my  advice  he  has 
inserted  many  things  in  the  preface,  whereby  to  express  more  fully 
his  belief  in  the  presence  of  Christ.  Among  the  nobility  of  the 
kingdom,  those  are  very  powerful,  who  would  reduce  the  whole  of 
the  sacred  ministry  into  a  narrow  compass,  and  who  are  altogether 
unconcerned  about  the  restoration  of  Church  discipline.  [.  .  .  .Jj- 


In  the  Eucharist  there  is  no  transubstantiation.    2.  Nor  are  the 
body  and  blood  of  Christ  present  under  the  species  of  bread  and  wine.     3.  This 
body  and  blood  are  united  to  the  elements  sacramentally."  —  p.  478. 
f  ["A  sentence  is  here  defective  in  the  original  MS."] 


176 

While  they  seek  to  provide  against  our  bringing  down  Christ  the 
Lord  from  heaven,  and  confining  Him  in  the  bread,  and  offering 
Him  to  the  communicants  to  be  fed  upon  without  faith,  a  thing  that 
none  of  our  party  ever  thought  of;  they  themselves  go  so  far  as, 
without  any  warrant  of  Holy  Scripture,  to  confine  Him  to  a  certain 
limited  place  in  heaven ;  and  talk  so  vapidly  about  His  exhibition 
and  presence  in  the  supper,  (nay,  some  of  them  cannot  even  endure 
these  words,)  that  they  appear  to  believe  that  nothing  else  but  the 
bread  and  wine  is  there  distributed.  No  one  has  as  yet  found  fault 
with  me  for  my  simple  view  of  the  subject ;  nor  have  I  ever  heard 
of  any  one  who  has  been  able  to  confute  it  from  any  solid  passage  of 
Scripture,  nor  indeed  has  any  yet  ventured  to  make  the  attempt. 
Their  principal  argument  is,  that  the  mysteries  of  Christ  can  be  well 
and  intelligibly  explained,  (which  would  be  true,  if  they  would  add, 
'  to  faith,  but  not  to  reason.')  They  now  assume,  that  it  cannot 
with  reason  be  supposed  of  Christ,  that  He  is  in  heaven  without  be- 
ing circumscribed  by  physical  space  ;  and  since  he  is  thus  in  heaven, 
as  they  take  for  granted,  they  insist,  not  only  upon  what  no  one 
will  allow  them,  but  also  without  any  solid  reason,  that  it  cannot  be 
understood  that  the  same  body  of  Christ  is  in  heaven  and  in  the 
supper :  and  when  we  reply,  that  no  one  supposes  a  local  presence 
of  Christ  in  the  Supper,  they  again  say  that  the  body  of  Christ  cannot 
be  understood  to  be  present  anywhere  without  being  locally  circum- 
scribed. The  sum  therefore  of  their  argument  is  to  this  effect :  Reason 
does  not  comprehend  what  you  teach  respecting  the  exhibition  and 
presence  of  Christ  in  the  supper ;  therefore  they  are  not  true,  and 
the  Scriptures  which  seem  to  prove  them  must  be  otherwise  inter- 
preted. Let  us  pray  for  these  persons.  I  have  as  yet  met  with  no  real 
Christians  who  were  not  entirely  satisfied  with  our  simple  view 
of  the  subject,  as  soon  as  it  had  been  properly  explained  to 
them.  .  .  . " —  Original  Letters,  pp.  544-5. 

So,  too,  addressing  Calvin,  on  Whitsunday,  in  the  same 
year,  he  says  : — 

"  .  .  .  .  We  must  observe,  in  addition  to  these  evils,  that  not  a 
few  persons,  laying  aside  all  desire  after  true  repentance,  faith,  good 
works,  the  communion  and  discipline  of  the  Church,  do  nothing  but 
dispute  and  contend,  and  often  very  profanely,  how  they  may  seclude 
Christ  our  Saviour  from  our  sacraments  and  holy  assemblies,  and 
confine  him  to  his  place  in  heaven " — Ibid,  p.  547. 

On  the  other  hand,  if  it  is  to  be  inferred  from  P.  Martyr's 
language  to  the  Archbishop,  (see  p.  12,)  that  Cranmer  pre- 
ferred the  terms  used  in  the  Oxford  disputation  to  those 
which  Bucer  employed,  then  we  are  but  thrown  back  upon 
the  position  which  I  have  urged  that  P.  Martyr  defended 
on  that  occasion,  viz.,  that  there  is  no  "substantial  and  real 


177 

presence"  in  the  Sacrament,  i.  e.f  (in  the  other  words  by 
which  he  also  expresses  his  meaning)  the  Body  and  Blood  of 
Christ  are  not  there  "  corporally  "  in  the  sense  of  (t  substan- 
tially and  carnally  ;  "  for  thus  in  fact  he  interchanges  his  ex- 
pressions, showing  that  in  his  mind  real  stood  for  carnal. 

Two  years  later  than  Bucer's  Letters  just  quoted,  we  have 
Cranmer's  own  definition  of  the  word,  "  Corporal,"  from 
which  it  will  be  seen  still  further  in  what  sense  he  accounted 
it  obnoxious  to  a  true  description  of  the  Presence;  thus,  in 
his  Answer  to  Gardiner,  he  says  : — 

"  And  as  for  these  words,  '  carnally,"  and  '  corporally,'  I  defame 
them  not ;  for  I  mean  by  carnally  and  corporally,  none  otherwise 
than  after  the  form  and  fashion  of  a  man's  body,  as  we  shall  be  after 
our  resurrection,  that  is  to  say,  visible,  palpable,  and  circumscribed, 
having  a  very  quantity  with  due  proportion  and  distinction  of  mem- 
bers, in  place  and  order,  one  from  another.  And  if  you  will  deny 
Christ  so  to  be  in  heaven,  I  have  so  plain  and  manifest  Scriptures 
against  you,  that  I  will  take  you  for  no  Christian  man,  except  that 
you  revoke  that  error.  For  sure  I  am  that  Christ's  natural  body 
hath  such  a  grossness,  or  stature,  and  quantity,  if  you  will  so  call  it, 
because  the  word  grossness,  grossly  taken,  as  you  understand  it, 
soundeth  not  well  in  an  incorruptible  and  immortal  body." — Bk  iii., 
p.  140. 

So,  again,  he  replies  to  the  same  Prelate : — 

"And  as  for  this  word,  *  corporal,'  you  openly  confessed  your 
own  ignorance  in  the  open  audience  of  all  the  people  at  Lambeth  ; 
when  I  asked  you,  what  corporal  body  Christ  hath  in  the  Sacrament, 
and  whether  he  had  distinction  of  members  or  no,  your  answer  was 
in  effect,  that  you  could  not  tell.  And  yet  was  that  a  wiser  saying 
than  you  spake  before  in  Cyril,  where  you  said,  that  Christ  hath 
only  a  spiritual  body  and  a  spiritual  presence,  and  now  you  say,  he 
hath  a  corporal  presence.  And  so  you  confound  corporal  and 
spiritual,  as  if  you  knew  not  what  either  of  them  meant,  or  wist  not, 
or  cared  not  what  you  said.  But  now  I  will  return  to  my  book,  and 
rehearse  mine  answer  unto  St.  John  Chrysostom,  which  is  this." — 
Answer  to  Gardiner,  p.  182. 

Cranmer  then  goes  qp  to  quote  from  his  Defence  of  the  true 
Doctrine,  etc.,  where  he  cites  St.  Chrysostom  as  saying 
(In  Sermone  de  Eucharistia  in  Encceniis.) 

"  *  When  you  come  to  these  mysteries.'  speaking  of  the  Lord's 
board  and  holy  communion,  '  do  not  think  that  you  receive  by  a  man 

A  A 


178 

the  body  of  God,'  meaning  of  Christ.     These  be  St.  John  Chrysos- 
tom's  own  words  in  that  place. 

"  Then  if  we  receive  not  the  body  of  Christ  at  the  hands  of  a  man, 
ergo,  the  body  of  Christ  is  not  really,  corporally,  and  naturally  in 
the  Sacrament,  and  so  given  to  us  by  the  priest " — p.  182. 

And  once  more  he  writes : — 

"And  what  this  word,  *  corporal,'  meaneth,  I  am  not  ignorant. 
Marry,  what  you  mean  by  '  corporal '  I  know  not,  and  the  opening 
thereof  shall  discuss  the  whole  matter.  Tell  therefore  plainly 
without  dissimulation  or  coloured  words,  what  manner  of  body  it  is 
that  Christ  hath  in  the  Sacrament  ?  Whether  it  be  a  very  and  per- 
fect man's  body,  with  all  the  members  thereof,  distinct  one  from 
another,  or  no  ?  for  that  understand  I  to  be  a  man's  corporal  body, 
that  hath  all  such  parts,  without  which  may  be  a  body,  but  no  per- 
fect man's  body :  so  that  the  lack  of  a  finger  maketh  a  lack  in  the 
perfection  of  a  man's  body.  Marry,  if  you  will  make  Christ  such  a 
body  as  bread  and  cheese  is,  (wherein  every  part  is  bread  and 
cheese,  without  form  and  distinction  of  one  part  from  another,)  I 
confess  mine  ignorance,  that  I  know  no  such  body  to  be  a  man's 
body.  Now  have  I  showed  mine  ignorance :  declare  now  your  wit 
and  learning.  For  sure  I  am  that  Christ  hath  all  those  parts  in 
heaven,  and  if  he  lack  them  in  the  Sacrament,  then  lacketh  he  not  a 
little  of  his  perfection.  And  then  it  cannot  be  one  body  that  hath 
parts  and  no  parts." — p.  228. 

Before  passing  on  to  such  statements  of  other  writers  as 
serve  to  illustrate  that  meaning  of  the  Declaration  for  which, 
throughout,  I  have  been  contending,  it  may  be  well  to  pro- 
duce two  or  three  other  passages  from  Cranmer's  "  Answer  to 
Gardiner,"  touching  the  nature  of  the  Presence,  especially  as 
they  exhibit  that  prelate's  latest  belief  at  the  time  (1558,) 
when  he  had  gone  the  farthest  in  the  direction  of  low  views  of 
Eucharistic  doctrine ;  it  will,  I  think,  be  seen  that,  amid 
much  loose  language,  he  did  not  deny  such  an  objective  Pre- 
sence in  the  Ministration  as  justified  Kneeling  in  token  of 
adoration :  more  than  this  is  not  necessary  for  my  purpose, 
even  if  it  can  be  produced  from  the  Archbishop's  later 
writings;  for  any  question  of  the  Presence  as  regards  the 
Sacrament  reserved,  does  not  come  into  consideration  here ; 
nor  is  it  needful  to  discuss  the  point — whether  as  great  diffi- 
culties* would  not  have  attended  his  view  (in  any  case 

»  Though  he  quotes,  apparently  in  defence  of  his  opinion,  the  statements  of 


179 

where  necessity  might  have  required,  e.  g.,  the  reservation  of 
the  Sacrament  for  a  sick  person)  as  wait  upon  the  belief  that 
whatever  relation  Consecration  produces  between  the  Sacra- 
mentum  and  the  Res  Sacramenti,  such  relation  does  not  cease 
with  the  Ministration  itself,  but  continues  under  the  circum- 
stances supposed. 

The  first  passage  I  would  quote,  is  one  in  which  Gardiner 
cites  against  Crarimer  the  words  of  Eusebius  Emissenus,  who 
seems  to  have  been  a  favourite  writer  with  the  Archbishop  ; 
his  words  are  : — 

"  And  where  Emissene  saith,  that  Christ  hath  taken  his  body 
from  our  sight  into  heaven,  and  yet  in  the  sacrament  of  his  holy 
supper  he  is  present  .with  his  grace  through  faith,  he  doth  us  to  un- 
derstand, that  he  is  not  present  in  the  forms  of  bread  and  wine 
OUtf  Of  the  ministration,  (except  you  will  say,  that  faith  and  grace 
be  in  the  bread  when  it  is  kept  and  hanged  up,)  but  when  the  bread 
and  wine  be  eaten  and  drunken  according  to  Christ's  institution,  then, 
to  them  that  so  eat  and  drink,  the  bread  and  wine  is  the  body  and 
blood  of  Christ,  according  to  Christ's  words :  Edite,  hoc  est  corpus 
meum.  Bibite,  hie  est  calix  sanguinis  met.  And  therefore  in  the 
book  of  the  holy  communion,  we  do  not  pray  that  the  creatures  of 
bread  and  wine  may  be  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ,  but  that  they 
may  be  to  us  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ ;  that  is  to  say,  that  we 
may  so  eat  them,  and  drink  them,  that  we  may  be  partakers  of  his 
body  crucified,  and  of  his  blood  shed  for  our  redemption." — p.  271. 

With  this  reference  to  "the  book  of  the  Holy  Communion," 
it  is  desirable  to  compare  the  following  argument  between 
Cranmer  and  Gardiner  ;  the  latter  had  said  : — 

"  The  body  of  Christ  is  by  God's  omnipotency,who  so  worketh  in 
his  word,  made  present  unto  us  at  such  time,  as  the  Church  pray 
[prayeth]  it  may  please  him  so  to  do,  which  prayer  is  ordered  to  be 
made  in  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer  now  set  forthj,  wherein  we 

Roman  writers,  observing  that  "  some  say,  that  the  body  of  Christ  remaineth  so 
long  as  the  form  and  fashion  of  bread  remaineth,  ...  Some  say,  it  remaineth  no 
longer  than  the  Sacrament  is  in  the  eating,  and  may  be  felt,  seen,  and  tasted  in 
the  mouth."  (p.  56.)  Again,  "  And  where  you  say  that  Christ  undoubtedly  re- 
maineth in  the  man  that  worthily  receiveth  the  Sacrament,  so  long  as  that  man 
remaineth  a  member  of  Christ :  how  agreeth  tbis  with  the  common  saying  of  all 
tbe  papists,  tbat  Christ  is  contained  under  the  forms  of  bread  and  wine,  and  re- 
maineth tbere  no  longer  than  tbe  forms  of  bread  and  wine  remain  ? "  (p.  59.) 

f  Does  not  tbis  imply  clearly,  that  Cranmer  beld  tbat  "  He  is  present  in  the 
forms  of  bread  and  wine  IN  the  ministration  "  f 

J  "  Winchester  here  refers  to  these  words  in  tbe  first  Service  Book  of 
Edward  VI.,  in  tbe  prayer  of  Consecration,  '  With  thy  Holy  Spirit  and  word 


180 

require  of  God,  the  creatures  of  bread  and  wine  to  be  sanctified,  and 
to  be  to  us  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ,  which  they  cannot  be,  un- 
less God  worketh  it,  and  make  them  so  to  be  :  in  which  mystery  it 
was  never  taught,  as  this  author  willingly  misreporteth,  that 
Christ's  most  precious  body  is  made  of  the  matter  of  bread,  but  in 
that  order  exhibited  and  made  present  unto  us,  by  conversion  of 
the  substance  of  bread  into  his  precious  body  ;  not  a  new  body  made 
of  a  new  matter  of  bread  and  wine,  but  a  new  presence  of  the  body, 
that  is  never  old,  made  present  there,  where  the  substance  of  bread 
and  wine  was  before " — p.  79. 

To  this  Cranmer  answers : — 

"  Christ  is  present  whensoever  the  Church  prayeth  unto  him,  and 
is  gathered  together  in  his  name.  And  the  bread  and  wine  be 
made  unto  us  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ,  (as  it  is  in  the  book  of 
common  prayer,)  but  not  by  changing  the  substance  of  bread  and 
wine  into  the  substance  of  Christ's  natural  body  and  blood,  but  that 
in  the  godly  using  of  them  they  be  unto  the  receivers  Christ's  body 
and  blood  :  as  of  some  the  Scripture  saith,  that  their  riches*  is 
their  redemption,  and  to  some  it  is  their  damnation ;  and  as  God's 
word  to  some  is  life,  to  some  it  is  death  and  a  snare,  as  the  prophet 
saith.  And  Christ  himself  to  some  is  a  stone  to  stumble  at,  to  some 
is  a  raising  from  death,  not  by  conversion  of  substances,  but  by  good 
or  evil  use  :  that  thing  which  to  the  godly  is  salvation,  to  the 
ungodly  is  damnation.  So  is  the  water  in  Baptism,  and  the  bread 
and  wine  in  the  Lord's  Supper,  to  the  worthy  receivers  Christ  him- 
self and  eternal  life ;  and  to  the  unworthy  receivers,  everlasting 
death  and  damnation,  not  by  conversion  of  one  substance  into  ano- 
ther, but  by  godly  or  ungodly  use  thereof.  And  therefore,  in  the 
book  of  the  holy  Communion,  we  do  not  pray  absolutely  that  the 
bread  and  wine  may  be  made  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ,  but  that 
unto  us  in  that  holy  mystery  they  may  be  so ;  that  is  to  say,  that 
we  may  so  worthily  receive  the  same,  that  we  may  be  partakers  of 
Christ's  body  and  blood,  and  that  therewith  in  spirit  and  in  truth  we 
may  be  spiritually  nourished.  And  a  like  prayer  -f  of  old  time  were 
all  the  people  wont  to  make  at  the  communion  of  all  such  offerings 
as  at  that  time  all  the  people  used  to  offer,  praying  that  their  offer- 
ings might  be  unto  them  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ. 

"  And  where  you  say,  '  it  was  never  taught  as  I  say,  that  Christ's 

vouchsafe  to  bless  and  sanctify  these  thy  gifts  and  creatures  of  bread  and  wine, 
that  they  may  be  unto  us  the  body  and  blood  of  thy  most  dearly  beloved  Son, 
Jesus  Christ.'  In  the  second  Service  Book  of  Edward  VI.,  this  prayer  was 
changed  as  it  now  stands." — Editor's  Note. 

*  It  is  important  to  notice  here  that  Cranmer' s  whole  argument  is  based  upon 
the  fact  of  the  SAME  THING,  differently  used,  producing  different  effects. 

f  "  Domin.  3.  Post.  Trin.  Secret.— Munera  tibi,  Domine,  quibus  oblata  sanc- 
tifica,  ut  tui  nobis  unigeniti  corpus  et  sanguis  fiant  ad  medelam." 


181 

body  is  made  of  the  matter  of  bread,'  you  knowingly  and  willingly 
misreport  me.     For  I  say  not  of  the  matter  of  bread,  but  of  bread  ; 
which  when  you  deny  that  the  papists  so  say,  it  seemeth  you  be 
now  ashamed  of  the  doctrine  which  the  papists  have    taught  this 
four  or  five  hundred  years.     For  is  it  not  plainly  written  of  all  the 
papists,  both  lawyers  and  school-authors,  that  the  body  of  Christ  in 
the  Sacrament  is  made  of  bread,  and  his  blood  of  wine  ?     And  they 
say  not  that  his  body  is  made  present  of  bread  and  wine,  but  is 
made  of  bread  and  wine.     Be  not  their  books  in  print  ready  to  be 
showed  ?     Do  they  not  say  that  the  substance  of  the  bread  neither 
remaineth  still,  nor  is  turned  into  nothing,  but  into  the  body  of 
Christ  ?     And  do  not  yourself  also  say  here  in  this  place,  that  the 
substance  of  bread  is  converted  into  Christ's  precious  body  ?     And 
what  is  that  else  but  the  body  of  Christ  to  be  made  of  bread,  and  to 
be  made  of  a  new  matter  ?  *     For  if  the  bread  do  not  vanish  away 
into  nothing,  but  be  turned  into  Christ's  body,  then  is  Christ's  body 
made  of  it ;  and  then  it  must  needs  follow  that  Christ's  body  is  made 
of  new,f  and   of  another  substance   than  it  was  made  of  in  his 
mother's  womb  ;  for  there  it  was  made  of  her  flesh  and  blood,  and 
here  it  is  made  of  bread  and  wine.     And  the  papists  say  not,  (as  you 
now  would  shift  off  the  matter)  that  Christ's  body  is  made  present  of 
bread,  but  they  say  plainly  without  addition,  that  it  is  made  of 
bread.     Can  you  deny  that  this  is  the  plain  doctrine  of  the  papists  ? 
Ex  pane  fit  Corpus  Christi.     '  Of  bread  is  made  the  body  of  Christ,' 
and  that  the  substance  of  bread  is  turned  into  the  substance  thereof? 
And  what   reason,  sentence,  or  english,  could  be  in   this  saying, 
'  Christ's  body  is  made  present  of  bread  ?  '     Marry, {  to  be  present 
ill  bread  might  be  some  sentence,  but  this  speech  will  you  in  no  wise 
admit." — pp.  79  and  80. 

Again,  with  reference  to  Gardiner's  charge,  that  he  had 
unfairly  used  St.  Chrysostom's  language,  Cranmer  says : — 

"  But  always  you  be  like  yourself,  proceeding  in  amplification  of 
an  argument  against  me,  which  you  have  forged  yourself,  and 
charge  me  therewith  untruly.  For  I  use  not  this  speech,  that  we 
receive  not  the  body  of  God  at  all,  that  we  receive  it  but  in  a 
figure.  §  For  it  is  my  constant  faith  and  belief,  that  we  receive 
Christ  in  the  Sacrament  verily  and  truly ;  and  this  is  plainly  taught 
and  set  forth  in  my  book.  But  that  '  verily '  as  I  with  Chrysostom, 
and  all  the  old  authors  take  it,  is  not  of  such  a  sort  as  you  would 
have  it.  For  your  understanding  of  '  verily  '  is  SO  CapemaicaJ,  SO 
gross,  and  so  dull  in  the  perceiving  of  this  mystery,  that  you  think  a 

*  "  [  *  And  to  be  made  anew  of  a  new  matter.'  1551.1 " 

f  "[Is  made  new,  1551.]" 

J  What  is  this  but  the  language  of  the  contested  Advertisement — "  under  the 
form  of  bread  and  wine  ?  " 

§  Cranmer's  marginal  note  is— "Christ  is  verily  and  truly  present  and 
received." 


182 

man  cannot  receive  the  body  of  Christ  verily,  unless  he  take  him 

corporally,  in  his  corporal  mouth,  flesh,  blood,  and  bones,  as 

lie  was  bom  Of  the  Virgin  Mary.  But  it  is  certain  that  Chrysostom 
meant  not,  that  we  receive  Christ's  body  verily  after  such  a  sort,  when 
he  saith,  *  Do  not  think  that  you  receive  by  a  man  the  body  of  God.1 
And  yet,  because  I  deny*  only  this  grOSS  misunderstanding',  you 

misreport  my  doctrine,  that  I  should  say,  we  '  receive  not  Christ  at  all, 
but  in  a  figure,  and  no  body  at  all ; '  wherein  you  untruly  and  slan- 
derously report  me,  as  my  whole  book  and  doctrine  can  witness 
against  you."  [Then  immediately  follows  the  passage  at  p.  33 : 
"  For  my  doctrine  is  ....  nor  meant."  And  afterwards  it  con- 
tinues,] "  Turn,  I  pray  thee,  gentle  reader,  to  the  thirty-sixth  leaf 
of  my  book,  and  note  these  words  there,  which  I  allege  out  of  Chry- 
sostom. *  Do  not  think,'  saith  he,  '  that  you  receive  by  a  man  the 
body  of  God.'  Then  turn  aver  the  leaf,  and  in  the  twentieth  line, 
note  again  my  saying  that,  *  in  the  holy  Communion  Christ  himself 
is  spiritually  eaten  and  drunken,  and  nourisheth  the  right  believers.' 
Then  compare  those  sayings  with  this  place  of  this  ignorant  lawyer, 
and  thou  shalt  evidently  perceive,  that  either  he  will  not,  or  cannot, 
or  at  the  least,  he  doth  not  understand  what  is  meant  in  the  book  of 
common  prayer,  and  in  my  book  also,  by  the  receiving  and  feeding 
upon  Christ  spiritually." — p.  185. 

The  passage  to  which  Cranmer  here  refers,  is  found  in  his 
"  Second  Book  against  Transubstantiatiou,"  and  runs  thus : 

"....'  Lo,'  say  they,  *  Doth  not  Chrysostomus,  the  great  clerk, 
say  most  plainly,  that  we  see  neither  bread  nor  wine ;  but  that,  as 
wax  in  the  fire,  they  be  consumed  to  nothing,  so  that  no  substance 
remaineth  ?  '  But  if  they  had  rehearsed  no  more,  but  the  very  next 
sentence  that  followeth  in  Chrysostom,  which  craftily  and  maliciously 
they  leave  out,  the  meaning  of  St.  John  Chrysostom  would  easily 
have  appeared,  and  yet  will  make  them  blush,  if  they  be  not  utterly 
past  shame.  For  after  the  foresaid  words  of  Chrysostom,  imme- 
diately follow  the  words : 

" '  Wherefore,'  saith  he,  '  when  ye  come  to  these  mysteries,  do 
not  think  that  you  receive  by  a  man  the  body  of  God,  but  that  with 
tongues  you  receive  fire  by  the  angels  seraphin.'  And  straight  after 
it  followeth  thus : 

" '  Think  that  the  blood  of  salvation  floweth  out  of  the  pure  and 
godly  side  of  Christ,  and  so  coming  to  it,  receive  it  with  pure  lips. 
Wherefore,  brethren,  I  pray  and  beseech  you,  let  us  not  be  from 
the  Church,  nor  let  us  not  be  occupied  there  with  vain  communica- 
tion ;  but  let  us  stand  fearful  and  trembling,  casting  down  our  eyes, 
lifting  up  our  minds,  mourning  privily  without  speech,  and  rejoicing 
in  our  hearts.' 

*  Language  which  seems  to  include  all  that  can  be  required  in  favour  of  the 
Real  Objective  Presence. 


183 

"  These  woids  of  Chrysostom  do  follow  immediately  after  the 
other  words,  which  the  papists  before  rehearsed.  Therefore  if  the 
papists  will  gather  of  the  words  by  them  recited,  that  there  is 
neither  bread  nor  wine  in  the  Sacrament,  I  may  as  well  gather  of 
the  words  that  follow,  that  there  is  neither  priest  nor  Christ's  body. 

"  For  as  in  the  former  sentence  Chrysostom  saith,  '  that  we  may 
not  think  that  we  see  bread  and  wine  ;'  so  in  the  second  sentence 
he  saith,  that  '  we  may  not  think  that  we  receive  the  body  of  Christ 
of  the  priest's  hands.'  Wherefore,  if  upon  the  second  sentence,  as 
the  papists  themselves  will  say,  it  cannot  be  truly  gathered,  that  in 
the  holy  communion  there  is  not  the  body  of  Christ  ministered  by 
the  priest ;  then  must  they  confess  also,  that  it  cannot  be  well  and 
truly  gathered  upon  the  first  sentence,  that  there  is  no  bread  nor 
wine. 

"  But  there  be  all  these  things  together  in  the  holy  communion,  * 
[a]  Christ  himself  spiritually  eaten  and  drunken,  and  [b~]  nourishing 
the  right  believers  ;  [c]  the  bread  and  wine  as  a  sacrament  declaring 
the  same  ;  and  the  priest  as  a  minister  thereof.  Wherefore  St.  John 
Chrysostom  meant  not  absolutely  to  deny  that  there  is  bread  and 
wine,  or  to  deny  utterly  the  priest  and  the  body  of  Christ  to  be 
there ;  but  he  useth  a  speech,  which  is  no  pure  negative,  but  a 
negative  by  comparison." — p.  312. 

Then,  having  cited  1  Sam.  viii.  7  ;  Ps.  xxii.  6  ;  St.  Matt. 
x.  34  ;  xxiii.  9  ;  Rom.  vii.  17  ;  1  Cor.  i.  17  ;  Gal.  ii.  20 ; 
Eph.  vi.  12,  and  other  texts  as  some,  of  many,  examples  of 
"  a  negative  by  comparison,"  he  thus  continnes  : — 

"  Now  forasmuch  as  I  have  declared  at  length  the  nature  and 
kind  of  these  negative  speeches,  which  be  no  pure  negatives  but  by 
comparison,  it  is  easy  hereby  to  make  answer  to  St.  John  Chrysos- 
tom, who  used  this  phrase  of  speech  most  of  any  author.  For  his 
meaning  in  his  foresaid  homily  was  not,  that  in  the  celebration  of 
the  Lord's  Supper  is  neither  bread  nor  wine,  neither  priest  nor  the 
body  of  Christ,  which  the  papists  themselves  must  needs  confess  ; 
but  his  intent  was  to  draw  our  minds  upward  to  heaven,  that  we 
should  not  consider  so  much  the  bread,  wine,  and  priest,  as  we 
should  consider  his  divinity  and  Holy  Spirit  given  unto  us  to  our 
eternal  salvation. 

"  And  therefore  in  the  same  place  he  useth  so  many  times  these 
words,  '  Think  and  think  not,'  willing  us  by  these  words  that  we 
should  not  fix  our  thoughts  and  minds  upon  the  bread,  wine,  priest, 

*  Does  not  Cranmer  here  give  precisely  the  definition  of  the  present  Cate- 
chism [c]  "the  outward  part  or  sign"  =  Sacramentum  :  [a]  "  the  inward  part 
or  thing  signified"  =  Res  Sacramenti :  (b)  "  the  benefits  "  =  Virtus.  The  original 
is  "  Atqui  hsec  omnia  in  sacrosancta  coena  pariter  existunt.  Christus  ipse 
spiritualiter  perceptus  et  fideles  pascens,  panis  et  vinun  id  nobis  demonstrantia 
sacramento,  et  sacerdos  horum  minister."  • 


184 

nor  Christ's  body  ;  but  to  lift  up  our  hearts  higher  unto  his  spirit 
and  divinity,  without  the  which  his  body  availeth  nothing,  as  saith 
himself:  '  It  is  the  Spirit  that  giveth  life,  the  flesh  availeth  nothing.' 

"  And  as  the  same  Chrysostom  in  many  places  moveth  us  not  to 
consider  the  water  in  baptism,  but  rather  to  have  respect  to  the 
Holy  Ghost,  received  in  baptism,  and  represented  by  the  water  : 
even  so  doth  he  in  this  homily  of  the  holy  communion  move  us  to 
lift  up  our  minds  from  all  visible  and  corporal  things  to  things  in- 
visible and  spiritual. 

"  Insomuch  that  although  Christ  was  but  once  crucified,  yet 
would  Chrysostom  have  us  to  think  that  we  see  him  daily  whipped 
and  scourged  before  our  eyes,  and  his  body  hanging  upon  the  cross, 
aud  the  spear  thrust  into  his  side,  and  the  most  holy  blood  to  flow 
out  of  his  side  into  our  mouths.  After  which  manner  St.  Paul 
wrote  to  the  Galations,  that  Christ  was  painted  and  crucified  before 
their  eyes. 

"  Therefore  saith  Chrysostom  in  the  same  homily  a  little  before 
the  place  rehearsed  :  '  What  dost  thou  O  man  ?  didst  not  thou  pro- 
mise to  the  priest  which  said,  Lift  up  your  minds  and  hearts  ;  and 
thou  didst  answer,  We  lift  them  up  unto  the  Lord  ?  Art  not  thou 
ashamed  and  afraid  being  at  that  same  hour  found  a  liar  ?  A  won- 
derful thing  !  The  table  is  set  forth,  furnished  with  God's  mysteries, 
the  Lamb  of  God  is  offered  for  thee,  the  priest  is  careful  for  thee, 
spiritual  fire  cometh  out  of  that  heavenly  table,  the  angels  seraphin 
be  there  present,  covering  their  faces  with  six  wings.  All  the  angelical 
power  with  the  priest  be  means  and  intercessors  for  thee,  a  spiritual 
fire  cometh  down  from  heaven,  blood  in  the  cup  is  drunk  out  of  the 
most  pure  side  unto  thy  purification.  And  art  not  thou  ashamed, 
afraid,  and  abashed,  not  endeavouring  thyself  to  purchase  God's 
mercy  ?  O  man,  doth  not  thine  own  conscience  condemn  thee  ? 
There  be  in  the  week  one  hundred  and  sixty  eight  hours,  and  God 
asketh  but  one  of  them  to  be  given  wholly  unto  him,  and  thou 
consumest  that  in  worldly  business,  in  trifling  and  talking :  with 
what  boldness  then  shalt  thou  come  to  these  holy  mysteries  ?  O 
corrupt  conscience !' 

"  Hitherto  I  have  rehearsed  St.  John  Chrysostom's  words,  which 
do  show  how  our  minds  should  be  occupied  at  this  holy  table  of  our 
Lord,  that  is  to  say,  withdrawn  from  the  consideration  of  sensible 
things  unto  the  contemplation  of  most  heavenly  and  godly  things. 
And  thus  is  answered  this  place  of  Chrysostom,  which  the  papists 
took  for  an  insoluble,  and  a  place  that  no  man  was  able  to  answer. 
But  for  further  declaration  of  Chrysostom's  mind  in  this  matter  read 
the  place  of  him  before  rehearsed,  fol.  26  and  28."* — pp.  314-16. 


*  i.e.  p.  273.  "  About  the  same  time,  or  shortly  after,  about  the  year  of  our 
Lord  400,  St.  John  Chrysostom  writeth  thus  against  tbem  tbat  used  only  water 
in  the  sacrament.  '  Christ,'  saitb  he,  '  minding  to  pluck  up  that  heresy  by  the 
roots,  used  wine  as  well  before  his  resurrection,  when  he  gave  the  mysteries,  as 


185 

The  especial  design  of  Cranmer  in  these  passages,  as  indeed 
throughout  his  whole  Answer,  may  perhaps  be  best  described 
in  his  own  words  at  the  commencement  of  his  argument, 
where  he  says  : — 

'*  This  therefore  shall  be  mine  issue  :  that  as  no  scripture,  so  no 
ancient  author  known  and  approved,  hath  in  plain  terms  your  tran- 
subtantiation ;  nor  that  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ  be  really, 
Corporally,  naturally,  and  carnally  under  the  forms  of  bread  and 
wine  ;  nor  that  evil  men  do  eat  the  very  body  and  drink  the  very 
blood  of  Christ ;  nor  that  Christ  is  offered  every  day  by  the  priest  a 
sacrifice  propitiatory  for  sin.  Wherefore  by  your  own  description 
and  rule  of  a  catholic  faith,  your  doctrine  and  teaching  in  these  your 
articles  cannot  be  good  and  catholic,  except  you  can  find  it  in  plain 
terms  in  the  scripture  and  old  catholic  doctors ;  which  when  you  do, 
I  will  hold  up  my  hand  at  the  bar,  and  say,  '  guilty,'  and  if  you 
cannot,  then  it  is  reason  that  you  do  the  like,  per  legem  talionis" — 
Ans.  to  Gardiner.  Book  i.  p.  1 3. 

And  again,  at  p.  152,  his  language  is  : — 

And  as  for  pleading  of  those  words,  *  really,'  '  corporally,' 
6  Sensibly,'  and  '  naturally,'  they  be  your  own  terms,  and  the  terms 
wherein  resteth  the  whole  contention  between  you  and  me ;  and 
should  you  be  offended  because  I  speak  of  those  terms  ?  It 
appeareth  now  that  you  be  loth  to  hear  of  those  words,  and  would 
very  gladly  have  them  put  in  silence,  and  so  should  the  variance 
between  you  and  me  be  clearly  ended.  For  it  you  will  confess,  that 
the  body  of  Christ  is  not  in  the  Sacrament  really,  corporally, 

after  at  his  table  without  mysteries.  For  he  said,  '  of  the  fruit  of  the  vine ;" 
•which  surely  bringeth  forth  no  water,  but  wine.' 

These  words  of  Chrysostom  declare  plainly,  that  Christ  in  his  holy  table  both 
drank  wine  and  gave  wine  to  drink,  which  had  not  been  true  if  no  wine  had 
remained  after  the  consecration,  as  the  papists  feign.  And  yet  more  plainly  St. 
Chrysostom  declareth  this  matter  in  another  place,  saying :  '  the  bread  before  it 
be  sanctified  is  called  bread,  but  when  it  is  sanctified  by  the  means  of  the  priest, 
it  is  delivered  from  the  name  of  bread,  and  is  exalted  to  the  name  of  the  Lord's 
body,  although  the  nature  of  bread  doth  still  remain. 

"  'The  nature  of  bread,'  said  he,  '  doth  still  remain,'  to  the  utter  and  manifest 
confutation  of  the  papists,  which  say,  '  that  the  accidents  of  bread  do  remain, 
but  not  the  nature  and  subtance.' " 

And  p.  286  where,  having  quoted  two  passages  from  St.  Chrysostom  ad  Casa- 
rium  Monachum.  "  When  thou  speakest  of  God,"  &c.  and  "  Wherefore  Christ 
is. both  God  and  man"  &c.,  he  remarks  "  These  words  of  Chrysostom  declare,  and 
that  not  in  obscure  terms,  but  in  plain  words,  that  after  the  consecration 
the  nature  of  bread  remaineth  still,  although  it  have  an  higher  name,  and  be 
called  the  body  of  Christ,  to  signify  unto  the  godly  eaters  of  that  bread,  that 
they  spiritually  eat  the  supernatural  bread  of  the  body  of  Christ,  WHO  SPIRITUALLY 
is  THERE  PRESENT,  and  dwclleth  in  them,  and  they  in  him,  although  COPORALLY 
he  sitteth  in  heaven  at  the  right  hand  of  his  Father." 

B  B 


186 

Sensibly,  and  naturally,  then  you  and  I  shall  shake  hands,  and  be 
both  earnest  friends  of  the  truth. 

11  And  yet  one  thing  you  do  here  confess,  (which  is  worthy  to  be 
noted  and  had  in  memory,)  that  you  read  not  in  any  old  author, 
that  the  body  of  Christ  is  really  and  sensibly  in  the  Sacrament. 
And  hereunto  I  add,  that  none  of  them  say,  that  he  is  in  the  bread 
and  wine  corporally  nor  naturally,  No,  never  no  papist  said, 
that  Christ's  body  is  in  the  Sacrament  naturally  nor  carnally,  but 
you  alone,  (who  be  the  first  author  of  this  gross  error,  which  Smith 
himself  condemneth,  and  denieth  that  ever  Christian  man  so  taught,) 
although  some  say  that  it  is  there  '  really,'  some  '  substantially,' 

and  some  *  sensibly.' " 

Having  now  produced  these  statements  of  Cranmer  (per- 
haps at  needless  length  except  for  the  desire  of  giving  the 
context  fairly)  T  proceed  to  add  a  few  passages  from  some 
of  his  contemporaries  which  may  serve  to  illustrate  further 
that  (as  I  argued  in  the  Letter)  the  physical  Presence  held  to 
be  bound  up  with  Transubstantiation,  together  with  its  popu- 
lar result,  was  the  great  point  of  opposition  by  the  English 
reforming  party.  Thus  Ridley,  in  his  "Godly  talk  with 
Latimer  in  the  Tower,"  A.D.,  1555,  mentions  among  the 
"  things  "  which  he  says  "  do  offend  me  in  the  Mass  "  that 
"  the  sign  is  servilely  worshipped  for  the  thing  signified," 
(Foxe,  Act  and  Mon.  vii.  411)  thus  admitting  here  as  else- 
where (see pp.  58  and  60)  that  adoration  is  due  to  "the  thing 
signified." 

So,  too,  in  his  Examination  at  Oxford,  Sep.  30,  1555,  in 
part  quoted  at  p.  61,  he  thus  writes  touching  the  Sacra- 
mental change  due  to  Consecration. 

"  Always  my  protestation  reserved,  I  answer  thus ;  that  in  the 
Sacrament  is  a  certain  change,  in  that,  that  bread,  which  was  before 
common  bread,  is  now  made  a  lively  presentation  of  Christ's  body, 
and  not  only  a  figure,  but  effectuously  representeth  his  body,  that 
even  as  the  mortal  body  was  nourished  by  that  visible  bread,  so  is 
the  internal  soul  fed  with  the  heavenly  food  of  Christ's  body,  which 
the  eyes  of  faith  see,  as  the  bodily  eyes  see  only  bread.  Sucli  a 

sacramental  mutation  I  grant  to  be  in  the  bread  and  wine, 

which  truly  is  no  small  change,  but  such  a  change  as  no  mortal  man 
can  make,  but  only  the  omnipotency  of  Christ's  word." — Foxet  vii. 
528. 

The  next  example  is  from  a  very  different  class  of  persons, 


187 

viz.,  two  (l  husbandmen "  called  "John  Simson  and  John 
Ardely,  of  the  parish  of  Wigborough  the  Great  in  Essex," 
who  where  articled  by  Bishop  Bonner,  May  22,  1555 ;  two 
of  his  accusations  were  these  : — 

"  IV.  Item,  that  albeit  it  be  true,  that  in  the  Sacrament  of  the 
Altar  there  is  in  substance  the  very  body  and  blood  of  Christ 
under  the  forms  of  bread  and  wine,  and  albeit  that  it  be  so  believed, 
taught,  and  preached  undoubtedly  in  the  said  Church  of  Rome,  and 
all  the  other  Churches  aforesaid,  yet  thou  hast  not  so  believed,  nor 
dost  so  believe  ;  but,  contrariwise,  thou  hast  and  dost  believe  firmly 
and  stedfastly  that  there  is  not  in  the  said  Sacrament  of  the  altar, 
under  the  said  form  of  bread  and  wine,  the  very  Substance  of 
Christ's  body  and  blood,  but  that  there  is  only  the  substance  of 
material  and  common  bread  and  wine,  with  the  form  thereof;  and 
that  the  said  material  and  common  bread  and  wine  are  only  the 
signs  and  tokens  of  Christ's  body  and  blood,  and  by  faith  to  be 
received,  only  for  a  remembrance  of  Christ's  passion  and  death, 
without  any  SUCll  Substance  of  Christ's  body  and  blood  at  all. 

"  V.  Item,  that  thou  hast  believed  and  taught,  and  thou  hast 
openly  spoken,  and  to  thy  power  maintained  and  defended,  and  so 
dost  believe,  think,  maintain  and  defend,  that  the  very  true  receiving 
and  eating  of  Christ's  body  and  blood,  is  only  to  take  material  and 
common  bread,  and  to  break  it,  and  to  distribute  it  amongst  the 
people;  remembering  thereby  the  passion  and  death  of  Christ  only." 

To  these  charges  they  replied  thus  : — 

"  To  the  fourth  they  answer,  that  in  the  Sacrament,  commonly 
called  the  Sacrament  of  the  altar,  there  is  very  bread  and  very  wine, 
not  altered  or  changed  in  substance  in  any  wise  ;  and  that  he  that 
receiveth  the  said  bread  and  wine,  doth  Spiritually  and  by  faith 
Ollly  receive  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ ;  but  not  the  very 
natural  body  and  blood  of  Christ  in  substance  under  the  forms  of 
bread  and  wine. 

"  To  the  fifth  they  say,  they  have  answered,  answering  to  the 
said  fourth  article,  and  yet  nevertheless  they  say,  that  they  have 
believed,  and  do  believe,  that  in  the  Sacrament  of  the  altar  there  is 
not  the  very  Substance  of  Christ's  body  and  blood,  but  only  the 
Substance  of  the  natural  bread  and  wine.'* — Foxe,  vii.  87  and  88. 

The  last  illustration  is  from  "  Another  Letter  written  to 
the  Christian  Congregation  by  Robert  Samuel "  who  was 
"Minister  at  Barholt  [i.e.  Bargholt]  in  Suffolk;"  he  was 
burned  Aug.  31st,  1555;  in  this  Letter  "he  declareth  the 
confession  of  his  faith  "  thus  : — 


188 

"  The  other  Sacrament,  which  is  the  Supper  and  Holy  Maun- 
day  of  our  Saviour  Christ,  whereby  the  Church  of  Christ  is  known, 
I  believe  to  be  a  remembrance  of  Christ's  death  and  passion,  a  seal 
and  confirmation  of  his  most  precious  body  given  unto  death,  even 
to  the  vile  death  of  the  cross,  wherewith  we  are  redeemed  and 
delivered  from  sin,  death,  hell,  and  damnation.  It  is  a  visible  word, 
because  it  worketh  the  same  thing  in  the  eyes,  which  the  word 
worketh  in  the  ears.  For  like  as  the  word  is  a  mean  to  the  ears, 
whereby  the  Holy  Ghost  moveth  the  heart  to  believe  ;  so  this  Sacra- 
ment is  a  mean  to  the  eyes,  whereby  the  Holy  Ghost  moveth  the 
heart  to  believe ;  it  preacheth  peace  between  God  and  man  ;  it 
exhorteth  to  mutual  love  and  all  godly  life,  and  teacheth  to  contemn 
the  world  for  the  life  to  come,  when  Christ  shall  appear,  which  now 
is  in  heaven,  and  nowhere  else  as  concerning'  his  III  nil  sill  body. 

"  Yet  do  I  believe  assuredly,  that  his  very  body  is  present  in  his 
most  holy  Supper  at  the  contemplation  of  our  spiritual  eyes,  and 

so  verily  eaten  with  the  mouth  of  our  faith,    For  as  soon  as  I 

hear  these  most  comfortable  and  heavenly  words  spoken  and  pro- 
nounced by  the  mouth  of  the  minister,  "  This  is  my  body  which  is 
given  for  you  :"  when  I  hear  (I  say)  this  heavenly  harmony  of  God's 
infallible  promises  and  truth,  I  look  not  upon,  neither  do  I  behold 
bread  and  wine  ;  for  I  take  and  believe  the  words  simply  and  plainly, 
even  as  Christ  spake  them.  For  hearing  these  words,  my  senses  be 
rapt  and  utterly  excluded ;  for  faith  wholly  taketh  place,  and  not 

flesh,  nor  the  carnal  imaginations  of  our  gross,  fleshy,  and 
unreverent  eating  after  the  manner  of  our  bodily  food,  which 

profiteth  nothing  at  all,  as  Christ  witnesseth  ;  but  with  a  sorrowful 
and  wounded  conscience,  a  hungry  and  thirsty  soul,  a  pure  and 
faithful  mind,  do  fully  embrace,  behold,  and  feed,  and  look  upon, 
that  most  glorious  body  of  Christ  in  heaven,  at  the  right  hand  of 
God  the  Father,  very  God  and  very  man,  which  was  crucified  and 
slain,  and  his  blood  shed  for  our  sins,  there  now  making  intercession, 
offering  and  giving  his  holy  body  for  me,  for  my  body,  for  my  ran- 
som, for  my  full  price  and  satisfaction,  who  is  my  Christ,  and  all 
that  he  ever  hath  ;  and  by  this  spiritual  and  faithful  eating  of  this 
lively  and  heavenly  bread,  I  feel  the  most  sweet  sap  and  taste  of 
the  fruits,  benefits,  and  unspeakable  joys  of  Christ's  death  and  pas- 
sion, fully  digested  into  the  bowels  of  my  soul.  For  my  mind  is 
quieted  from  all  worldly  adversities,  turmoilings,  and  troubles  ;  my 
conscience  is  pacified  from  sin,  death,  hell,  and  damnation  ;  my 
soul  is  full,  and  hath  even  enough,  and  will  no  more  ;  for  all  things 
are  but  loss,  vile  dung,  and  dross,  vain  vanity,  for  the  excellent 
knowledge-sake  of  Christ  Jesus  my  Lord  and  Saviour. 

"  Thus  now  is  Christ's  flesh  my  very  meat  indeed,  and  his  blood 
my  very  drink  indeed,  and  I  am  become  flesh  of  his  flesh,  and  bone 
of  his  bones.  Now  I  live  yet  not  I,  but  Christ  liveth  in  me  :  yea, 
I  dwell  in  him,  and  he  in  me  ;  for,  through  faith  in  Christ  and  for 
Christ's  sake  we  are  one,  that  is,  of  one  consent,  mind,  and  fellow- 
ship with  the  Father,  the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Ghost.  Thus  am  I 


189 

assured  and  fully  persuaded,  and  on  this  rock  have  I  builded,  by 
God's  grace,  my  dwelling  and  resting  place  for  body  and  soul,  life 
and  death.  And  thus  I  commit  my  cause  unto  Christ  the  righteous 
and  just  Judge,  who  will  another  day  judge  these  debates  and  con- 
troversies ;  whom  I  humbly  beseech  to  cast  his  tender  and  merciful 
eyes  upon  the  afflicted  and  ruinous  Churches,  and  shortly  to  reduce 
them  into  a  godly  and  perpetual  concord.  Amen. 

"  Thus  do  I  believe,  and  this  is  my  faith  and  my  understanding  in 
Christ  my  Saviour,  and  his  true  and  holy  religion.  And  this  who- 
soever is  ashamed  to  do,  among  this  adulterous  and  sinful  generation, 
of  him  shall  the  son  of  Man  be  ashamed,  when  he  cometh  in  the 
glory  of  his  Father  with  the  holy  angels. 

ROBERT  SAMUEL." 

I  pass  on  now  to  consider  somewhat  more  fully,  than  in 
the  Letter,  such  occurrences  in  the  reign  of  Elizabeth  as 
touch  the  subject  on  which  the  Letter  proposed  to  treat. 

It  was  noticed  at  p.  63  that  the  Declaration  on  Kneeling 
did  not  appear  in  Elizabeth's  Prayer  Book,  and  the  reason 
assigned  by  Burnet  for  the  omission  is  there  quoted :  the 
same  Prelate,  in  writing  of  the  review  of  the  42  articles  in 
1559,  gives  the  following  account  of  the  way  in  which  the 
question  of  the  Real  Presence  was  then  dealt  with,  and  so 
furnishes  a  further  illustration  of  the  grounds  on  which  he 
alleges  the  suppression  of  the  Declaration  itself : — 

"  In  the  Article  about  the  Lord's  Supper,  there  is  a  great  deal 
left  out,  for  instead  of  that  large  refutation  of  the  Corporal  Pre- 
sence, from  the  impossibility  of  a  body's  being  in  more  places  at 
once  ;  from  whence  it  follows,  that  since  Christ's  body  is  in  Heaven, 
the  faithful  ought  not  to  believe  or  profess  a  Real  or  Corporal  Pre- 
sence of  it  in  the  Sacrament.  In  the  new  Articles,  it  is  said,  That 
the  body  of  Christ  is  given  and  received  after  a  spiritual  manner  ; 
and  the  means  by  which  it  is  received,  is  faith.  But  in  the  Original 
Copy  of  these  Articles  (M.  S.  S.  Cor.  Christ,  Camb.\  which  I  have 
seen  subscribed  by  the  hands  of  all  that  sat  in  either  House  of 
Convocation,  there  is  a  further  addition  made.  The  Articles  were 
subscribed  with  that  precaution,  which  was  requisite  in  a  matter  of 
such  consequence  ;  for  before  the  Subscriptions,  there  is  set  down 
the  number  of  the  pages,  and  of  the  lines  in  every  page  of  the  Book, 
to  which  they  set  their  hands. 

In  that  Article  of  the  Eucharist,  these  words  are  added,  Ghristus  in 
Ccelum  ascendens,  corpori  suo  immortalitatem  dedit,  naturam  non 
abstulit :  Humance  enim  naturce  veritatem,  juxta  scripturas  perpetuo 
retinet,  quam  in  uno  fy  definite  loca  esse,  fy  non  in  multa  vel 
omnia  simul  loca  diffundi,  oportet :  Quwn  iyitur  Christus  in  Coelum 


190 

sublatus,  ibi  usque  adfinem  Seculi  sit  premansurus,  atque  inde,  non 
aliunde,  (ut  loquitur  Augustinus)  venturus  sit  ad  judicandum  vivos 
Sf  mortuos,  non  debet  quisquam  fidelium,  Carnis  ejus  fy  Sanguinis 
realem  <^  corporalem  (ut  loquuntur)  prtesentiam  in  JEucharistia,  vel 
credere  vel  projiteri.  In  English  thus:  'Christ,  when  he  ascended 
into  Heaven,  made  his  Body  immortal,  but  took  not  from  it  the 
Nature  of  a  Body  :  For  still  it  retains,  according  to  the  Scriptures, 
the  Verity  of  a  human  Body ;  which  must  be  always  in  one  definite 
place,  and  cannot  spread  into  many,  or  all  places  at  once.  Since 
then  Christ  being  carried  up  to  Heaven,  is  to  remain  there  to  the 
end  of  the  world,  and  is  to  come  from  thence,  and  from  no  place 
else,  (as  says  St.  Austin)  to  judge  the  quick  and  the  dead  ;  none  of 
the  faithful  ought  to  believe  or  profess  the  real,  or  (as  they  call  it) 
the  corporal  Presence  of  his  Flesh  and  Blood  in  the  Eucharist.' 

"  But  this  in  the  original  is  dasht  over  with  minium :  yet  so, 
that  it  is  still  legible.  The  secret  of  it  was  this ;  the  Queen  and 
her  Council  studied,  (as  hath  been  already  shewn)  to  unite  all  into 
the  Communion  of  the  Church  :  and  it  was  alledged,  that  such  an 
express  definition  against  a  Real  Presence,  might  drive  from  the 
Church  many  who  were  still  of  that  persuasion  ;  and  therefore  it 
was  thought  to  be  enough  to  condemn  Transubstantiation,  and  to 
say,  that  Christ  was  present  after  a  Spiritual  manner,  and  received 
by  Faith  ;  to  say  more,  as  it  was  judged  superfluous,  so  it  might 
occasion  division.  Upon  this,  these  words  were,  by  common  con- 
sent, left  out :  and  in  the  next  Convocation,  the  Articles  were  sub- 
scribed without  them,  of  which  I  have  also  seen  the  original. 

"  This  shews  that  the  Doctrine  of  the  Church  subscribed  by  the 
whole  Convocation,  was  at  that  time  contrary  to  the  belief  of  a  Real 
or  Corporal  Presence  in  the  Sacrament ;  only  it  was  not  thought 
necessary  or  expedient  to  publish  it.  Though  from  this  silence, 
which  flowed  not  from  their  opinion,  but  the  wisdom  of  that  time, 
in  leaving  a  liberty  for  different  speculations,  as  to  the  manner  of  the 
Presence ;  some  have  since  inferred,  that  the  chief  pastors  of  this 
Church,  did  then  disapprove  of  the  definition  made  in  King  Edward's 
time,  and  that  they  were  for  a  Real  Presence." — Hist.  Ref.,  Pt.  ii., 
Bk.  iii.,  p.  375.  See  also  Hardwick  on  the  Articles,  p.  375. 

Mr.  Harold  Browne  thinks  that  "  the  clause  in  the  Article" 
of  1552  was  "omitted  in  Elizabeth's  reign;  lest  persons 
inclined  to  the  Lutheran  belief  might  be  too  much  offended 
by  it ;  and  many  such  "  he  adds  "  were  in  the  Church,  whom 
it  was  wished  to  conciliate." — Exposition  of  the  39  Articles, 
p.  708. 

Bishop  Burnet  was  quoted  as  stating  that  the  DECLARA- 
TION was  left  out  of  Elizabeth's  Prayer  Book  for  the  sake  of 
those  "inclinable  to  the  Communion  of  the  Church,  who  yet 


191 

retained  the  belief  of  the  Corporal  Presence  :"  Mr.  Browne 
(p.  100)  assumes  that,  as  with  the  Clause  in  the  Article,  "  it 

was  omitted from  a  wish  not  to   offend   the  many 

persons  of  Lutheran  sentiments  then  in  communion  with  the 
Church."  If,  moreover,  Mr.  Hallam's  statement  be  correct 
(and  there  is  much  reason  for  thinking  it  true)  that  "  Pius 
IVth.  .  .despatched  a  Nuncio  to  England,  with  an  invitation  to 
send  ambassadors  to  the  Council  of  Trent,  and  with  powers, 
as  is  said,  to  confirm  the  English  Liturgy,  and  to  permit 
double  Communion  ....  (Const.  Hist.  i.  p.  155.  See  also 
Strype  Ann.  i.  p.  221)  it  is  likely  enough  that  this*  circum- 
stance may  have  had  its  weight  in  determining  the  course  to 
be  followed  with  regard  to  both  Clause  and  Declaration. 

But  though  the  Clause  disappeared  from  the  Article  and 
the  Declaration  from  the  Prayer  Book,  it  would  seem  that 
the  object  of  them  was  not  disregarded  and  that  the  Declara- 
tion was  in  some  other  way  kept  before  the  Members  of  the 
Church  of  England :  for  in  a  joint  Letter  from  Grindal, 
Bishop  of  London,  and  Horn, Bishop  of  Winchester,  addressed 
to  Henry  Bullinger  and  Rodolp  Gualter,  "  dated  at  London, 
Feb.  6,  1566-7,"  they  write  thus: 

"  We  allow  of  Kneeling  at  the  receiving  of  the  Lord's  Supper, 
because  it  is  so  appointed  by  law  ;  the  same  explanation  however, 
or  rather  caution,  that  the  very  authors  of  the  Kneeling,  most  holy 
men  and  constant  martyrs  of  Jesus  Christ,  adopted,  being  most 
diligently  declared,  published  and  impressed  upon  the  people.  It 
is  in  these  terms :  '  Whereas  it  is  ordained  in  the  book  of  prayers, 
that  the  Communicants  should  receive  the  holy  Communion  Kneel- 
ing ;  yet  we  declare,  that  this  ought  not  so  to  be  understood,  as  if 
any  adoration  is  or  ought  to  be  done,  either  unto  the  sacramental 
bread  and  wine,  or  to  any  real  and  essential  presence  of  Christ's 
natural  flesh  and  blood  there  existing.  For  the  sacramental 

*  Mr.  Fisher  indeed  goes  so  far  as  to  say  that  "  the  new  alterations  [in  the 
Prayer  Book  of  1559]  were  all,  without  exception  in  a  Eomeward  direction  .  .  . 
.  .  .  How  then  was  this  effected  ?  Not  of  course  by  sanctioning  directly,  and  in 
terms,  the  doctrine  of  Transubstantiation  ;  but  by  removing  every  previous  pro- 
test against  the  doctrine  of  a  real  or  corporeal  presence,  so  as  to  leave  the  Service 
open  in  this  respect,  to  a  Papistical  interpretation. 

l<  We  say-  real  or  corporeal  presence ;  for  it  must  be  plain  to  every  unsophis- 
ticated mind,  that  these  two  terms,  as  employed  in  the  Eucharistic  controversy, 
mean  virtually  the  same  thing  ;  f  ?]....  Obviously  tbere  cannot  be  a  '  real ' 
presence  of  Christ's  human  nature  in  the  elements,  without  a  local  presence  of 
the  same  being  necessarily  implied." — Liturgical  Purity,  pp,  281-2. 


192 

bread  and  wine  remain  still  in  their  very  natural  substances,  and 
therefore  may  not  be  adored,  for  that  were  horrible  idolatry,  to  be 
abhorred  of  all  Christians ;  and  as  to  the  natural  body  and  blood 
of  our  Saviour  Christ,  they  are  in  heaven,  and  not  here ;  it  being 
against  the  truth  of  the  true  natural  body  of  Christ,  to  be  at  one 
and  the  same  time  in  more  places  than  one.'  " — Zurich  Letters,  1st 
Series,  p.  1 80. 

It  will  be  found,  by  a  comparison  of  this  statement  with 
the  form  of  the  Declaration  in  Edward's  2nd  Book  (see  p.  3) 
that  there  is  some  little  difference  in  the  language :  whether 
this  arises  from  mere  accident  on  the  part  of  the  writers  of 
the  Letter,  or  from  their  quoting  some  other  then  recognized 
version  of  the  Declaration,  seems  only  matter  for  conjecture. 
But,  however  that  may  be,  the  fact  of  the  Declaration  being 
then  recognized  mainly  in  the  form  which  it  originally  had, 
notwithstanding  its  exclusion  and  the  exclusion  of  the  Clause 
of  the  Article  containing  the  words  "reall  and  bodillie  "  from 
the  public  Formularies  out  of  regard  for  those  who  held 
(what  Burnet  calls)  "  the  Corporal  Presence,"  is  strong  evi- 
dence that  (as  I  have  all  along  contended)  "  real  and  essential" 
simply  meant  what  was  then  commonly  understood  by  "  cor- 
poral," and  were  not  the  equivalents  of  the  "  verily  and 
indeed  "  of  our  present  Catechism. 

The  order  of  dates  brings  me  now  to  a  Document  of  consi- 
derable importance  on  the  question  of  the  Real  Presence, 
and  therefore  on  the  meaning  to  be  attached  to  the  Declara- 
tion on  Kneeling  as  it  appears  to  have  been  used  in  Eliza- 
beth's days — I  mean  the,  now  well  known,  Letter  of  Bishop 
Geste  to  Secretary  Cecil  on  the  28th  Article  which  it  will  be 
convenient  here  to  reprint. 

The  Letter  of  Edmond  Geste  [or  GJieasf],  Bishop  of  Ro- 
chester,* to  Cecil,  Secretary  to  Queen  Elizabeth,  22nd 
December,  1566. 

"  Greeting  in  ye  Lord. 

" Right  Honourable — lamverye  sorye  yt  you  are  so  sicke, 
GOD  make  you  whole,  as  it  is  my  desyer  and  prayer.  I  wold 
have  seen  you  er  this,  accordinge  to  my  duetye  and  good  will, 

*  State  Paper  Office,  Orig.  Domestic -Elizabeth,  Vol.  xli.  No.  51. 


193 

but  when  I  sent  to  knowe  whether  I  might  see  you  it  was 
often  answered  yt  you  were  not  to  be  spoken  with. 

"  I  suppose  you  have  hard  how  ye  Bisshop  of  Glocestre 
[i.e.  Cheney]  found  him  selue  greeved  with  ye  plasynge  of  this 
adverbe  onely  in  this  article,  '  The  body  of  CHRIST  is  gyven 
taken  and  eaten  in  ye  Supper  after  an  heavenly  and  spirituall 
maner  onely/  bycause  it  did  take  awaye  ye  presence  of 
CHRISTIS  Bodye  in  ye  Sacrament,  and  prively  noted  me  to 
take  his  part  therein,  and  yeasterdaye  in  myn  absence  more 
playnely  vouched  me  for  ye  same.  Whereas  betwene  him 
and  me,  I  told  him  plainelye  that  this  word  onely  in  ye  fore- 
saied  Article  did  not  exclude  ye  presence  of  CHRISTIS  Body 
fro  the  Sacrament,  but  onely  ye  grossenes  and  sensiblenes  in 
ye  receavinge  thereof:  For  I  saied  vnto  him  though  he  tooke 
Christis  Bodye  in  his  hand,  receaved  it  with  his  mouthe,  and 
that  corporally  naturally  reallye  substantially  and  carnally  as 
ye  doctors  doo  write,  yet  did  he  not  for  all  that  see  it,  feale  it, 
smelle  it,  nor  taste  it.  And  therefore  I  told  him  I  wold 
speake  against  him  herein,  arid  ye  rather  bycause  YE  ARTICLE 
WAS  OF  MYN  OWNE  PENNYNGE.  And  yet  I  wold  not  for  all 
that  denye  therebye  any  thing  that  I  had  spoken*  for  ye  pre- 
sence. And  this  was  ye  some  of  our  talke. 

"  And  this  that  I  saied  is  so  true  by  all  sortes  of  men  that 

*  Compare  the  following  passage  from  his  "  Treatise  against  the  Prevee 
Masse,"  1548,  "  The  last  argument  that  ys  alledged  for  tornekynd  is  thys,  If 
Christes  bodye  be  in  thee  bred  (as  undoubtedly  it  is),  then  it  is  enbreaded  and 
his  bloude  enwyned,  which  was  alway  taken  for  a  great  heresy,  In  respect 
whereof  transubstantiation  nedes  must  be  graunted  as  ryght  true  and  belevable. 
To  thys  I  answer  in  sorte  thus,  Notwythstandinge  CHRISTES  Body  be  presented 
in  thee  bred  (as  questionles  it  is)  not  placely  as  ther  placed  spaced  and  measured, 
but  ghostly  ;  as  ther  unplaced  unspaced,  and  not  measured ;  Howbeit,  it  is  not 
enbreaded  no  more  then  the  deytie  is  recompted  enfleshed  for  that  it  is  substan- 
cially  in  us.  No  more  then  the  sayde  Godhede  is  demed  enbreaded,  for  yt  is  en- 
tirely in  eche  bred.  No  more  then  the  HOLY  GHOST  is  accompted  enbreathed 
for  that  He  was  presented  in  CHRISTES  breathe.  No  more  then  the  sayd  HOLY 
GHOSTE  is  adjudged  embodied  or  enharted,  for  yt  He  is  wholly  in  us  and  in  oure 
hartes.  CHRIS-TES  Body  is  adjudged  of  no  man  to  be  accidentednotwythstanding 
it  is  presented  in  the  accidentes  of  the  bread.  Why  then  shuld  it  be  adjudged 
enbreaded  for  Hys  presence  in  ye  bread.  The  one  is  as  reasonable  as  gatherable 
as  thother  is.  Some  are  fule  deceyved  in  the  meanynge  of  these  wordes  thim- 
panacion  of  CHRISTES  Bodye,  whyche  is  not  in  simple  any  presence  indeferently 
of  ye  sayd  Body  in  ye  bred :  No  more  than  the  incarnation  or  enfleshing  of 
CHRISTES  Godhede  is  indifferently  any  presence  therof  in  mans  fleshe  and 
nature.  But  only  soch  a  presence  of  CHRISTES  Body  in  the  bread  wherewyth 
they  both  shuld  be  unseverably  personed  and  have  al  theyr  condicions  and  pro- 
perties common  and  mutuall  betwixt  them.  Soch  a  presence  is  the  personal  pre- 
sence of  CHRISTES  Godhede  in  Hys  Manhode.  Soch  is  ye  presence  of  ye  soul  in 
ye  bodye.  In  respect  whereof  as  CHRISTES  Body  is  not  enpersoned  in  us,  not- 
withstanding it  be  enbodied  to  us  :  Semblable  though  the  sayd  body  be  presented 
in  ye  bred,  howbeit  it  is  not  become  one  person  therewith  which  is  properly 
termed  ye  impaning  or  enbreding  thereof." — p.  86,  ed.  1840. 

C  C 


194 

even  D.  Hardinge  writetli  ye  same  as  it  appeareth  most  evi- 
dently by  his  wordes  reported  in  ye  Busshoppe  of  Salisburie's 
[i.e.  Jewel's]  booke  pagina  325,  wich  be  thees :  *  Then  ye 
maye  saye,  y t  in  ye  Sacrament  His  verye  Body  is  present  yea 
really  that  is  to  say  in  deede,  substantially  that  is  in  substance, 
and  corporally  carnally  and  naturally,  by  ye  wich  words  is  ment 
that  His  verye  Bodye  His  verye  flesh  and  His  verye  humane 
nature  is  there  not  after  corporall  carnall  or  natural!  wise,  but 
invisibly  unspeakably  supernaturally  spiritually  divinely  and 
by  waye  unto  Him  onlye  knowen.' "  * 

"This  I  thought  good  to  write  to  your  honour  for  myn 
own  purgation.  The  Almightye  GOD  in  CHRIST  restore  you 
to  your  old  health,  and  longe  kepe  you  in  ye  same  with  en- 
crease  of  vertue  and  honour. 

Yours  whole  to  his  poore  powr 

"EDM.  ROFFEN." 

"  To  ye  right  Honourable  and  his  singler  good  friend 
Sir  Willm  Cecil  Knight  Principall  Secretaire 
to  ye  Queens  Matie- " 

It  would  have  been  unnecessary  for  my  purpose  to  do  more 
than  quote  this  Letter,  but  from  the  circumstance  that  Mr. 
Goode  (Supplement  to  Work  on  the  Eucharist,  1858)  has  en- 
deavoured to  deprive  it  of  the  value  which  it  seemed  to  pos- 
sess, by  producing  "  another  letter  of  the  same  Bishop, 
which  "  he  has  "  found  in  the  same  repository,"  viz.,  The 
State  Paper  Office.  I  agree  so  far  with  Mr.  Goode  as  to 
think  that  a  "  comparison"  of  the  two  Letters  and  "  the  in- 
ternal testimony  "  of  the  latter,  leave  no  reasonable  around  (I 
cannot  say  no  "possibility")  for  "a  doubt  that  both  are  by 
the  same  hand."  Mr.  Goode  has  only  printed  the  first  para- 
graph, and  so  much  besides  of  the  Document  as  deals  directly 
with  the  28th  and  29th  Articles ;  I  now  print  the  whole  (dis- 
tinguishing by  brackets  [[  ]]the  portions  given  by  Mr.  Goode,) 
for  two  reasons.  (1)  First,  because  I  think  other  parts  of  the 
Document  will  help  to  clear  up  the  difficulty  which  Mr. 
Goode  has  raised  :  (2)  Next,  because  the  entire  Document, 
not  having  been  hitherto  printed,  may  prove  interesting  on 
other  grounds.  The  Document  is  No.  37,  Vol.  Ixxviii.  of 
the  State  Papers  "  Domestic-Elizabeth/'  it  is  supposed  to  be 

*  The  extract  is  here  taken  from  Jewel's  controversy  with  M.  Harding, 
Art.  y.,  Divis.  v.,  p.  465,  «d.  P.S. 


195 

of  the  date,  "  May  1571,"  and  is  intitled  (in  Mr.  Lemon's 
Catalogue)  "  [Anonymous]  to  Burghley.     A  long  discourse, 
urging  a  unity  in  sound  and  true  doctrine,  indorsed  '  toching 
coming  to  ye  Church,  and  receaving  ye  Sacrament.'  " 
The  Paper  is  as  follows  :  — 

(In  dorso)     [[*  "  To  ye  right  honourable  &  his  verye  goode 

Lorde  L  of  Burleye  etc. 

"  I  am  bold  to  trouble  your  good  Lordshippe  ones  agayne 
for  unitie  in  sound  and  true  R4%t  doctrine.  Ffor  never  was 
there  better  occasion  when  to  performe  it  then  nowe.  By- 
cause  ye  Bisshoppes  have  gyven  uppe  ye  booke  of  articles  to 
ye  Quenes  matie  to  peruse  them  and  judge  them.  I  have 
writen  my  mynde  to  your  L.  of  some  of  ye  articles  that  ye 
saied  unitie  might  be  performed  and  set  forthe,  knowynge 
you  as  willinge  theunto  as  my  selfe.]] 

"  Note*. 

[L]  "  1.  It  is  writen  in  y*  begynnynge  of  ye  article  of  pre- 
destination as  it  is  in  Laten  thus  :  Predestinatio  ad 


est  eterna  dei  propositu,  quo  ante  jacta  mudi  fundameta,  suo 
consilio  nobis  quidem  occulto  constanter  decrevit,  eos  quos 
in  Christo  elegit,  ex  hominii  genere  a  maledicto  et  exitio 
liberare,  atqj  ut  vasa  in  honore  efficta,  per  Christu  ad  eterna 
salutem  adducere.  Thees  wordes  (suo  consilio  nobis  quidem 
occulto)  are  to  be  putt  out  of  yc  booke  for  three  causes 
The  first  is  bycause  ye  scripture  sheweth  playnely  y*  cause 
why  God  hath  predestined  them  to  eternall  life  whome  he 
hathe  chosen  in  Christ,  wiche  is  that,  yc  glorie  of  his  mercie 
and  grace  might  be  praised.  For  thus  Poule  writethe,  § 
Qui  predestinavit  ut  adoptaret  in  filios  per  Jesu  Chrum  in 
sese  juxta  beneplacitu  sue  voluntatis  ut  laudetur  gloria 
gratie  sue.  The  scond  cause  why  Goddcs  ||  it  is  not  true, 
that  goddes  consell  in  predestinatinge  us  is  not  knowen  unto 
us  is,  bycause  Powle  doth  saye  the  contrarie,^f  Patefacto 
nobis  arcano  volutatis  sue  juxta  beneplacitu  sun  quod  pro- 
posuerat  in  se  ipso  usq^  ad  ad  dispensation^  plenitudinis 
temporu  ut  sumatim  instauraret  oia  per  Chrum.  Here  Poule 

*  This  paragraph,  and  Sections  8,  9,  10,  and  11,  are  reprinted  from  Mr. 
Goode's  pamphlet  ;  the  rest  is  from  a  copy  obtained  at  the  State  Paper  Office. 

t  Erased  sic  in  MS. 

%  The  purport  of  the  rest  of  this  Section,  and  of  Sections  2  to  7  inclusive,  is 
then  stated  by  Mr.  Goode  in  a  short  paragraph. 

§  Ephe.  ii.  ||  Sic  in  MS.  f  Ephe.  i. 


196 

plainely  shewethe  that  what  tyme  Christ  came,  God  by  him 
declared  and  opened  ye  mysterie  of  our  predestination  and 
salvation.  Therefore  thees  wordes,  suo  consilio  nobis  quidem 
occulto,  are  to  be  putt  out  of  ye  booke.  The  thirde  cause 
wch  the  saied  wordes  are  to  bee  putt  out  of  ye  booke  is,  by- 
cause  by  those  wordes  it  is  to  be  gathered  that  there  is  a 
consell,  &  cause  in  God  in  predestinatinge  us  wiche  is  yet 
hidden  and  not  knowen  by  yc  scripture,  and  therefore  they 
gyve  occasion  to  curiouse  persons  to  searche  out  causes  of 
Goddes  predestination  besides  and  without  ye  scripture  wich 
is  a  dangerous  thinge  and  not  to  be  used  and  condemned  by 
Poule,*  in  that  he  saithe  that  he  taught  ye  Ephesians  all  ye 
counsell  of  God  mcanyngcf  for  he  meanethe  thereby  that 
there  is  no  other  cohsell  and  cause  in  God  to  predestinate  elect 
and  save  us  then  he  preached  to  ye  Ephesians. 

"2.  Agayne  in  ye  article  of  predestination  about  the 
ende  there  be  thees  wordes.  Furthermore  we  must  receave 
Goddes  promises  in  suche  wise,  as  they  be  generally  set  forthe 
to  us  in  holy  scripture.  Thees  wordes  be  not  playne  ynoughe. 
For  they  are  spoken  for  no  comfort  and  remedye  against  ye 
tentation  of  predestination  whereof  was  spoken  in  ye  sentence 
next  before.  Therefore  they  be  chefely  to  be  understanded 
of  ye  promissees  of  God  made  unto  us  for  salvation  and  life 
everlastinge.  By  ye  wiche  we  ought  to  learne  two  necessaire 
and  comfortable  lessons.  The  first  is  that  God  in  his 
generall  promissees  of  eternall  healthe  promisethe  and 
offerethe  salvation  and  eternall  life  to  every  man  wiche 
hearethe  them.  For  that  is  for  ye  promisees  of  God  to  be 
generally  set  forthe  unto  us  in  ye  scripture.  The  second 
that  every  man  must  beleve  that  God  promiseth  unto  him 
salvation  &  eternall  life  when  ye  promisees  of  salvation  be 
preached  unto  him.  For  that  is  to  receave  the  promisees  of 
god  as  they  be  generally  set  forthe  in  ye  scripture  but  it  is  to 
harde  for  ye  meane  learned  or  yc  simple  people  to  gather  out 
thees  nedefull  lessons  out  of  thees  wordes  folowynge.  We 
must  receave  Goddes  promisees  in  suche  wise  as  they  be 
generally  set  forthe  in  y*  scripture.  Wherefore  for  ye  better 
understandinge  of  them.  I  wolde  wishe  some  more  wordes 
to  be  putt  unto  for  ye  expressinge  of  suche  a  meanyng.  As 
thus,  We  must  receave  and  beleve  the  promissees  of  God  in 
Christ  for  eternall  health  and  life  to  belong  to  every  man  as 
they  generally  be  set  forthe  to  all  men  in  the  holy  scripture 
so  that  every  man  wiche  beleveth  to  yc  ende  in  Christ  shall 

*  Act.  xx.  f  Sic  in  MS. 


197 

be  saved.  And  they  wiche  beleve  not  in  him  shall  be 
damned,*  Qui  credit  filio  habet  vitam  eternall.  f  JBut  he  that 
beieveth  not  in  ye  name  of  ye  onely  begotten  Sone  of  God. 

"  3.  In  ye  ende  of  ye  article  of  predestination  there  be  thees 
wordes  In  our  doyenges  that  will  of  God  is  to  be  folowed 
wiche  we  have  expressely  declared  unto  us  in  ye  worde  of 
God.  In  that  it  is  here  saied  that  in  our  doyenges  that  will 
of  God  is  to  be  folowed  wiche  is  expressed  in  ye  scripture  ;  it 
playnely  gyveth  us  to  understande  that  there  be  two  willes  of 
God,  one  in  the  scripture  an  other  without  ye  scripture  and 
that  those  two  willes  be  contrarye  or  els  why  should  it  be 
forbidde  to  folowe  any  will  of  God  in  our  doyenges.  There- 
fore the  foresaied  wordes  be  dangerous  bycause  to  teache  two 
willes  to  be  in  God  and  them  to  be  contradictorie  the  one  to 
will  one  thinge  and  ye  other  not  to  will  the  same  but  ye  con- 
trarie  is  a  doctrine  wich  must  nedes  cause  ye  comptempt§  of 
Goddes  will  that  it  foloweth  hereby,  that  what  a  man  dothe 
he  dothe  it  by  ye  will  of  God  either  open  or  secrete  Where- 
fore I  wold  wishe  ye  above  rehersed  wordes  and  sentence  to 
be  quyt  put  out.  And  in  there  place  this  to  be  placed  as 
necessaire  to  ye  mattier. 

"  We  ought  not  to  judge  nor  speake  of  predestination  and 
election  nore  of  the  causes  of  them,  but  as  they  be  playnely 
taught  us  in  ye  worde  of  God. 

"  4.  In  ye  article  of  sacramentes,  whereas  it  is  writen  a 
litle  after  ye  begynynge  in  this  wise,  By  the  wiche  he  dothe 
work  invisibly  in  us,  if  there  were  putt  in  this  worde  (( salva- 
tion ')  then  ye  vertue  of  ye  sacrametes  of  baptisme  and  of  ye 
Lordes  supper  shuld  be  more  fully  expressed  bycause  they 
doe  not  onely  confirme  our  faithe  but  also  be  meanes  whereby 
God  worketh  in  us  eternall  healthe. 

"  5.  And  whereas  a  litle  after  it  is  saied,  There  are  two 
sacramentes  ordeyned  of  Christ  our  Lorde  in  ye  gospell  that 
is  to  saye  baptisme  and  ye  supper  of  ye  Lorde.  In  my 
judgemet  it  were  better  saied  thus.  In  this  sort  there  be  but 
two  sacrametes  baptisme  and  ye  Lordes  supper  and  ye  reast  to 
be  lefit  out  bycause  thees  wordes  (in  this  sorte)  have  a  respect 
to  that  wiche  was  spoken  of  before,  whereby  thees  two  sacra- 
mentes are  showed  to  have  no  felowes. 

"  6.  It  folowethe  in  ye  booke.  Thees  fyve  comonly 
called  sacrametes  that  is  to  saye  confermation  penance  orders 
matrimonie  and  extreme  annoylinge  are  not  to  be  accompted 
for  sacramentes  of  ye  gospell.  This  is  not  true  in  all  poyntes  : 

*  Joan  iii.  f  Joan  iii.  J  Sic  in  MS.  §  Sic  in  MS. 


198 

For  it  is  certein  that  Christ  did  order  his  apostles  by  thees 
his  wordes,  Sicut  misit  me  pater  ita  ego  mitto  vos,  haec  cu 
dixisset  flavit  in  eos  et  dicit  eis.*  Accipite  spiritii  sactii 
quorucuq^  remiseritis  peccata  remittiitur  eis,  quorucuq3  re- 
tinueritis  retenta  sut.  Here  Christ  did  not  onely  order  and 
admitte  his  apostles  to  be  preachers  of  his  worde  and  to  be 
ministers  of  his  sacramentes  but  also  by  his  breathinge  gave 
them  ye  Holy  Ghost  whereby  they  had  ye  more  grace  to 
execute  there  office.  It  is  nothinge  worthe  that  is  here  ob- 
jected that  he  wiche  dothe  order  can  not  gyve  to  him  wiche 
is  ordered  ye  Holy  Ghost.  For  by  Calvine  (who  is  ye  autour 
of  this  sayenge)  granteth  that  by  orderynge  he  that  dothe 
order  dothe  gyve  unto  him  wiche  is  ordered  authoritie  to  for- 
gyve  syne  wich  is  as  great  a  worke  as  to  gyve  ye  Holy  Ghost 
yea  it  can  not  be  gyven  with  out  ye  Holy  Ghost,  Poule  in 
steade  of  breathinge  used  in  orderynge  ye  laynge  on  of 
handes.  Stirre  up  saithe  he  to  Timothie  ye  gift  of  God  wich 
is  in  ye  layenge  on  of  handes.f  He  hath  ye  same  in  an  other 
place  whereby  we  learne  that  we  ought  to  be  ordered  by  im- 
position of  handes  and  that  thereby  grace  is  gyven  to  him 
wiche  is  ordered.J  So  that  it  can  not  be  well  denyed  but 
that  orderynge  is  a  sacramet  of  ye  gospel ;  but  yet  not  such 
one,  as  baptisme  and  ye  Lordes  supper  be  bycause  by 
orderynge  to  the  person  wiche  is  ordered  no  forgynes§  of 
synes  is  oifered,  nor  his  faith  kese  ||  herein  is  confirmed. 

"7.  Nowe  further  in  ye  booke  Being  suche  as  have 
growen  partely  of  ye  corrupt  folowynge  of  ye  apostles.  It  is 
ment  by  thees  wordes  that  confirmation,  penance,  orders, 
matrimonie  have  growen  of  ye  corrupt  folowyng  of  ye  apostles, 
but  this  I  see  not  to  be  true  bycause  they  be  all  godly 
thinges,  and  maye  be  used  with  great  profitt  and  godlynes. 
therefore  there  is  no  corruption  but  a  puritie  in  usinge  of 
them  as  the  apostles  did.  Yeat  as  good  and  as  godly  as  they 
be  they  are  no  suche  sacramentes  as  baptisme  and  y*  Lordes 
supper  are.  Bycause  none  of  them  have  appoynted  of  God 
ye  visible  signe  of  His  healthfull  grace,  and  all  of  them 
(save  penance)  want  that  grace  and  so  they  are  not  to  be  ac- 
compted  for  suche  sacraments  as  baptisme  and  ye  Lordes 
supper  are,  wiche  have  bothe  ye  signe  and  Goddes  heathfull^y 
grace.  Therefore  by  my  judgemet,  whereas  it  is  saied  those 
fyve  comonly  called  sacramentes,  that  is  to  save,  confirmation, 
penance,  orders,  matrimonye,  extreme  annoylinge  are  not  to 
be  accompted  for  sacramentes  of  ye  gospell  beinge  suche  as 

*  Joan  xx.  f  2  Timo.  i.  %  1  Timo.  iv.  §  Sic  in  MS. 

||  Sic  in  MS.  IT  Sic  in  MS. 


199 

have  growen  partly  of  yc  corrupt  folowynge  of  ye  apostles, 
and  so  forthe  to  ye  ende  of  the  sentence  I  wishe  all  out 
of  ye  booke  and  to  be  in  there  stead  of  thees  wordes  folow- 
yenge  confirmation  penance  orders  matrimonye  and 
extreme  annoylinge  are  not  to  be  taken  for  suche  sacramentes 
as  baptisme  and  ye  Lordes  supper  be  bycause  none  of  them 
hathe  appoynted  of  God  the  visible  signe  of  his  healthfull 
grace  and  all  of  them  save  penance  want  that  grace  And  so 
they  are  not  to  be  accompted  for  suche  sacramentes  as  bap- 
tisme and  yc  Lordes  supper  are,  wiche  have  bothe  ye  signe 
and  Goddes  healthefull  grace  ordeyned  of  God  to  be  signified 
and  gyven  by  it. 

"8.  [[In  ye  Article  of  yc  Lordes  Supper  it  is  thus  said. 
The  bodye  of  Christ  is  gyven  taken  &  eaten  in  ye  Supper 
after  a  heavenlye  &  spuall  maner  onely.  Thoughe  it  be  true, 
that  ye  bodye  of  Christ  can  not  be  gyven  taken  &  eaten  in  his 
supper,  but  it  must  nedes  be  truely  gyven  taken  and  eaten  in 
}e  supper,  yet  bycause  some  men  for  a  more  playnes  wold 
have  added  this  worde  truely  or  in-dede,  in  this  wise,  The 
body  of  Christ  is  in  dede  gyven,  taken  &  eaten  in  ye  supper, 
it  were  well  to  putt  it  in,  and  Calvine  agreethe  thereunto  for 
thus  he  writethe  in  his  comentaries  upon  these  wordes  of 
Poule,  hoc  est  corpus  meu.  Conclude  realiter  ut  vulgo 
loquutur'hoc  est  vere  nobis  dari  in  ceria  corpus  Christi.  And 
my  L.  of  Sarisburie  hath  thees  wordes.  That  we  verelye  & 
undoubtedly  receave  Christis  bodye  in  ye  sacrament  it  is 
neither  denyed,  nor  in  question.]] 

"  9.  [[In  that,  in  ye  booke  it  is  further  saied  after  a 
spirituall  &  heavenly  maner  onely  some  be  offended  withe 
this  worde  onely,  as  my  L.  of  Glocester,  as  thoughe  this 
worde  onely  did  take  awaye  ye  reall  presence  of  Christis 
bodye,  or  ye  receavinge  of  y  same  by  yc  mouthe,  whereas  it 
was  putt  in  onely  to  this  ende,  to  take  away  all  grosse  &  sen- 
sible presence,  for  it  is  very  true  that  when  Christis  bodye  is 
taken  &  eaten,  it  is  neither  seen,  felt,  smelt  nor  tasted  to  be 
Christis  body,  and  so  it  is  receaved  and  eaten  but  after 
a  heavely  &  spirituall  &  no  sensible  manner.  And  whereas 
it  is  saied  bycause  ye  mouthe  receavethe  Christis  bodye, 
therefore  it  is  sensibly  receaved,  The  consequent  is  not  true 
bycause  ye  mouthe  in  receavinge  Christis  bodye,  doeth  not 
feele  it  nor  taste  it,  nor  we  by  any  other  sence  do  perceave  it. 
Yet  for  all  this  to  avoyde  offence  &  contention  ye  worde 
onely  maye  be  well  left  out,  as  not  nedeful.  My  L.  of 
Glocester  is  pronouced  excoinunicate  by  my  lorde  of  Canter- 
burie  &  shall  be  cited  to  answer  before  him,  and  other 


200 

bishoppes  to  certein  errours  whiche  he  is  accused  to  bolde.  I 
tbink  if  tbis  worde  onely  were  put  out  of  ye  booke  for  his 
sake  it  were  ye  best.]] 

"  10.  [[It  foloweth  in  ye  booke,  But  ye  mene  whereby  ye 
bodye  of  Christ  is  receaved  &  eaten  in  ye  supper  is  faithe.  if 
this  worde  profitably  were  put  hereunto  in  this  sort,  But  ye 
mene  whereby  ye  body  of  Christ  is  profitably  receaved  & 
eaten  in  ye  supper  is  faith,  then  shuld  the  occasion  of  this 
question,  whether  y*  evill  do  receave  Christis  body  in  ye 
sacrament,  by  cause  they  lacke  faithe  (wiche  risethe  of  ye 
forsaied  wordes  &  causethe  miche  strife)  shuld  be  quyte  taken 
awaye,  for  that  hereby  is  not  denyed  the  unfrutefull  re- 
ceavinge  of  Christis  body  without  faithe  but  yc  frutefull  onely 
affirmed.]] 

[["My  L.  grace  of  Canterburie  is  purposed  to  present  to  ye 
Quenes  Matie  ye  first  copie  of  ye  booke  of  articles  (to  the 
wiche  ye  most  part  of  bishops  have  subscribed)  to  have  it 
authorised  by  Her  Matie,  and  there  is  this  article.]] 

"11.  [[Evill  men  receave  not  ye  bodye  of  Christ,  which 
article  is  not  in  ye  prynted  bookes  either  in  Laten  or 
Englishe.  If  this  article  be  confirmed  and  authorised  by  ye 
Quenes  grace  it  will  cause  muche  busynes,  bycause  it  is  quyte 
contrarie  to  ye  scripture  &  to  ye  doctrine  of  ye  fathers,  for  it 
is  certein  that  Judas  as  evill  as  he  was  did  receave  Christis 
bodye,*  bycause  Christ  saied  unto  him  take  eate  this  is  my 
bodye.  It  is  not  saied,  if  thou  be  a  good  or  a  faith efull  man, 
take  eate  this  is  my  bodye,  but  simply  without  any  suche 
condition,  take  eate  this  is  my  bodye.  So  that  to  all  men 
wiche  be  of  ye  churche  &  of  the  profession  of  Christ,  whether 
they  be  good  or  bad,  faithfull  or  unfaythefull  (for  to  them 
onely  Christ  spoke  thees  wordes  take  eate  this  is  my  body 
and  not  to  ye  jewe  turke,  miscreant  beast  or  birde)  Christis 
body  is  gyven  &  they  do  receave  it.f  That  is  ye  cause  that 
poule  saith  whosoever  shall  eate  of  this  breade  &  dryncke  ofye 
cuppe  of  ye  Lorde,  unworthely,  shall  be  giltie  of  ye  body  & 
bloude  of  ye  Lorde,  for  he  that  eatethe  or  drynkethe  unwor- 
thely eatethe  &  drynketh  his  owne  danation,  bycause  he 
makethe  no  difference  of  ye  Lordes  body.  Note  well  thees 
wordes  ye  Lordes  body.  It  [sic]  not  here  saied  ye  signe 
or  sacrament  of  ye  Lordes  body  nor  ye  grace  or  fruite  of 
the  Lordes  bodye,  nor  ye  memorie  of  the  Lordes  passion, 
but  plainely  ye  Lordes  bodye,  to  teache  us  that  ye  evill 
men  of  the  churche  doo  receave  Christes  bodye.  Therefore 

*  Matt.  xx.  f  1  Cor.  xi. 


201 

Theodoretus  (that  anciant  father)  in  his  comentarie  upon 
ye  saied  wordes  thus  writethe,  Illud  aute,  Erit  reus  cor- 
poris  et  sanguinis  domini,  hoc  significat,  quod  queadmodii 
tradidit  ipsii  Judas,  Ipsi  autem  insultaverut  et  eum  probris  et 
convitiis  affecerut  Judei,  Ita  eum  ignominia  et  dedecore 
afficiut,  qui  sanctissimum  ejus  corpus  immundis  manibus 
accipiiit,  et  in  pollutu  incestiique  os  imittut,  God  grant  us 
unitie  in  true  &  sounde  doctrine  for  Christis  sake.  Amen.]] 

[II.]  "1.  [B]  Touchinge  ye  first  part  of  ye  bill  wich  is  to 
dryve  men*  papistes  to  yechurche,  I  thinke  it  both  lawfull 
&  necessarie,  for  ye  pcipictoc  bavo  noo  just  cr.vtse  to  f  but 
withall  to  enforce  them  to  receave  I  think  it  utterly  to  be 
unlawful!.  For  if  we  knowe  yl  the  papistes  doo  thinke  y'  ye 
coiriunion  wiche  we  doo  minister  is  no  comunion  or  no  lawful 
comunion  (as  certainly  they  doo)  and  we  do  knowe  it,  then  we 
ought  not  to  gyve  it  them  bycause  they  receavinge  wichj  such 
an  evill  opinion  of  ye  comunion  shuld  take  it  to  theire  codena- 
tion  and  so  to  gyve  them  ye  comunion  what  were  it  els,  but  to 
go  aboute  to  destroye  them.  And  we  have  no  power  saith  Poule 
to  destroye  but  to  edifie. 

"2.  [B]  Poule  willeth  no  man  to  receave  before  he  dothe 
first  examyn  him  selve,  whether  he  judgeth  right  of  y*  sacrainet 
or  no  and  hath  a  pure  faith  and  a  good  and  a  cleane  conscience 
or  no.  Let  a  man  saith  he  examyn  him  selve  and  then  leitt  him 
eate  of  that  bread  and  drynke  of  that  cuppe  whereby  he 
teachethe  us  that  no  man  shuld  receave  so  long  as  he  judgeth 
not  well  of  ye  sacrainet  Ch»i  § 

"3.  [B]  Christ  forbiddeth  us  to  gyve  an  holy  thing  unto 
dogges  wieke||  and  is  not  ye  comunion  an  holy  thinge  and  those 
papistes  wich  judge  ill  of  our  comunion  be  they  not  in  respect 
of  theire  ill  judgmet  as  evill  as  dogges  withe  reverence  I  speake 
it.  Therefore  we  ought  not  to  gyve  ye  comunion  to  those 
papistes  wiche  judge  evill  of  ye  comunion. 

"  4.  [B]  Poule  willeth  us  to  shone  an  heretique  after  ones 
or  twise  warnynge.  And  doo  we  not  take  the  stoute  papist 
be  an  heretique.  Then  we  ought  to  shone  him  leaving  his 
companye  and  not  to  gyve  him  ye  comunion  the  chefest 
token  of  fellowshippe.  If  he  will  not  heare  ye  churche  saithe 
Christ  Lett  him  be  unto  thee  as  an  ethnicke  and  a  publicane. 

"5.  [B]  Chrisostome  saith,  that  he  had  rather  dye  then  he 
wold  wittingly  gyve  ye  sacrainet  to  any  man  whom  he  knewe 
wold  take  it  unworthely.  And  will  we  gyve  ye  sacrainet  to  ye 

*  Sic  in  MS.  f  Sic  in  MS.  J  Sic,  query  with. 

§  Sic  in  MS.  ||  Sic  in  MS. 

D    D 


202 

stoute  papist,  whom  we  knowe  doth  thinke  evill  of  ye  sacra- 
ment, and  so  when  he  taketh  it  must  nedes  receave  it  to  his 
danation.  Suerly  if  we  gyve  him  ye  sacrament  we  can  not 
with  out  repentance  escape  the  perill  that  Chrisostome  feared 
thereby. 

6.  [B]   "  The  comunion  bookewilleth  none  to  receave  wiche 
is  a  blasphemer  of  God,  or  an  hinderer,  or  a  slanderer  of  *  of 
His  worde.     And  do  we  not  take  the  obstinate  papist  to  be 
suche.      Therefore  by  the  comunion  booke,  we  ought  not  to 
gyve  ye  comunion  to  ye  obstinate  papist. 

7.  [B]  "  The  papist  knoweth  that  he  doth  syne  yf  he  should 
receave  that  for  ye  comunion  wiche  he  judgethe  to  be  no 
one. 

8.  [B]  "  And  so  if  we  shuld  enforce  him  to  receave  we 
shuld  cause  him  to  syne  against  his  conscience  wiche  is  deadly 
syne.     Qui  edificat  contra  conscientiam  edificat  ad  gehenna 
he  that  buildeth  against  conscience  buildeth  to  hell. 

"  But  it  is  here  said  yt  Austene  wold  that  ye  Donatistes 
shuld  be  enforced  to  receave.  Therefore  why  shuld  not  ye 
papistes  be  dryven  to  receave  also.  To  this  I  answer 
Austene  confesseth  yl  ye  Donatistes  had  ye  same  word  and 
sacramentes  that  ye  Catholiques  had.  For  ye  Donatistes 
did  confesse  yc  an  evill  man  did  preache  ye  same  worde  yc  a 
good  ma  did  and  did  minister  ye  sacrametes  that  a  good  man 
did ;  but  they  denied  y1  ye  word  wiche  was  preached  by  an 
evill  man,  and  ye  sacramentes  wich  were  ministered  by  an 
evill  man  were  profitable  to  ye  hearer  and  ye  receaver  as  ye 
worde  preached  by  a  good  man  and  y  "sacrametes  ministered 
by  a  good  man  were.  As  ye  papistes  grant  yr  baptisme 
wich  is  gyven  to  him  wich  is  out  of  ye  churche  is  not  profita- 
ble untill  he  wich  hathe  it  come  to  ye  churche  And  yet  ye 
papistes  take  it  for  a  true  and  perfitt  baptisme  in  substance 
notwithstandinge.  Therefore  Austene  might  well  enforce  ye 
Donatistes  to  receave  as  agreeinge  with  ye  catholiques  in  ye 
substance  thereof.  [9.  B]  But  ye  papistes  thinke  y*  we  have 
no  consecration  and  so  no  comunion  or  sacramet  as  the 
catholiques  have.  Therefore  ye  example  ef  f  or  consell  of 
Austene  in  forcynge  ye  Donatistes  to  receave  maketh  not  to 
enforce  ye  papistes  to  receive  our  comunion  as  a  true  and 
a  perfitt  comunion  wichej;  bycause  in  there  conscience  they 
take  it  to  be  no  one.  [HI.]  That  wiche  for  hast  I  wrote 
eonfuselyand  unperfitly  before,  I  have  sent  k§  you  amended. 
[1.  Bb]  The  bill  for  bynding  men  to  come  to  churche  I 

*  Sic.  in  MS.         f  Sic.  in  MS.         I  Sic.  in  MS.         $  Sic.  in  MS. 


203 

thincke  it  both  lavvfull  and  also  necessarie  for  the  papistes 
have  no  just  cause  to  absent  them  fro~  it  by  cause  they  can 
not  denye  but  it  is  ye  word  of  God  wiche  is  there  redde  and 
the  prayers  wiche  be  there  saied  be  accordinge  to  ye  same 
worde.  And  by  cause  ye  saied  worde  is  ye  meane  appoynted 
of  God  to  bring  us  fro"  errour  to  trueth  and  prayer  is 
there  made  to  desyre  God  to  bringe  them  fro~  errour  wiche 
be  deceaved  Therefore  ye  papistes  wiche  be  in  an  errour 
ought  to  be  dryven  by  ye  lawe  to  come  to  ye  churche  to 
heare  ye  worde  of  God  there  redde  and  preached  and  with 
all  ye  comon  prayers  y4  they  may  be  brought  from  it. 
Whereas  ye  bill  enforceth  them  to  ye  comunion  ever  that 
be  not  well  persuaded  therein  that  is  unlawful  and  that 
in  two  respects.  The  one  touchethe  the  corriunicantes  The 
other  tfest*  concernethe  them  that  shall  minister  unto  them. 
[8.  Bb]  As  touchinge  them  wiche  judge  not  well  of  y* 
comunion  (as  it  was  ministred  and  consecrated)  this  I  have 
to  saye  It  is  decreed  by  ye  counsell  of  Trident  (as  it  was 
before  by  ye  counsell  of  Florence)  that  ye  sacramete  must 
be  consecrated  and  ministred  with  y'  entention  as  the 
churche  dothe  holde  them  but  ye  papist  knowethe  ye  we 
doo  not  consecrate  nor  minister  ye  sacrament  withe  ye  entent 
of  ye  churche,  bycause  ye  churche  saithe  that  the  bread  is 
transubstantiated  and  yl  Christis  body  is  there  really.  And 
our  ministers  doo  consecrate  and  minintcr-f-  but  to  this  ende 
and  entent,  to  make  ye  sacramet  of  Christis  body  as  it  is  in 
heaven  and  not  as  it  is  in  ye  sacrament.  Therefore  if  ye 
papist  be  enforced  to  yej  receave  ye  sacrament  he  taketh  it  to 
his  condenation  bycause  he  judgeth  it  not  to  be  ye  Lordes 
body  and  so  receaveth  it  unworthely  (as  it  is  in  Poule). 

9.  [Bb]  "  The  papist  thinketh  that  we  have  no  consecra- 
tion bycause  we  speake  not  the  wordes  of  consecration  over 
ye  breade  by  takynge  it  in  our  handes  or  by  appoyntynge 
unto  it  when  these  wordes  are  in  utterynge,  as  Austine  re- 
quyreth  Accedat  verbum  ad  elemetu"  et  sit  sacramentu~ 
And  to  prove  this  to  be  true  it  is  saied  in  ye  comunion  booke 
Heare  us  O  mercifull  Father  we  beseech  thee  and  grant  yc 
receavynge  thees  creatures  of  bread  and  wyne  accordynge  to 
thy  sone  our  Saviour  Jesus  Christis  holy  institution  in  re- 
membrance  of  his  deathe  and  passion  maye  be  partakers  of 
his  most  blessed  body  and  bloude.  He  saith  not  that  we 
maye  be  partakers  thereby  partakers  of  his  body  and  bloude. 
Note  this  worde  thereby  or  ye  like  is  here  left  out,  wiche 

*  Sic.  in  MS.         f  Sic.  in  MS.         J  Sic.  in  MS. 


204 

shuld  applye  ye  wordes  to  ye  breade  and  wyne  to  make  them 
to  be  meanes  to  receave  by,  ye  body  and  bloude  of  Christ ; 
wiche  giveth  us  to  understande  that  it  is  ment  there  that 
Christis  body  is  not  given  us  by  ye  sacramet  but  otherwise 
spiritually  onely  by  faith  wich  is  deeu  both  when  we  re- 
ceave and  when  we  doo  not.  As  for  the  wordes  wiche  doo 
after  folow  in  ye  booke  they  seme  to  to  *  be  spoken  in  ye 
waye  of  a  storie  and  not  for  entention  of  consecration. 

["8.]  As  concernynge  the  ministers  if  they  know  any  men 
to  be  suche  papistes,  wiche  holde  that  the  comunion  wich  they 
gyve  is  either  no  coinunion  or  an  unlawfull  coin  union  he 
ought  not  to  gyve  it  them  bycause  he  knoweth  that  he 
shold  gyve  it  them  to  there  condemnation  And  we  have 
no  power  saithe  Poule  to  destroye  but  to  edifie.  [5.  Bb] 
And  Chrisostome  saithe  he  had  rather  dye  then  he  wold 
wittingly  gyve  ye  com  union  to  any  man,  that  wold  unworthely 
receave  it.  [3.  Bb]  And  Christ  coinandeth  that  we  shuld  not 
dare  sanctu  canibus.  [4.  Bb]  And  Poule  saith  hereticu  post 
una  aut  alteram  admonitionem  de  vita.  If  we  ought  to 
shone  ye  copaynye  of  him  that  is  an  heretique  or  of  a  con- 
trari'e  opinion  then  we  ought  not  to  gyve  him  ye  coinunion 
ye  chefe  signe  of  felowshippe.  Therefore  it  is  saied  of  Christ 
Si  ecclesiam  non  audierit  sit  tibi  ethnicus  et  publican.  [6.  Bb] 
The  coinunion  booke  willethe  that  none  wiche  is  a  blasphemer 
of  God  or  an  hinderer  or  a  slanderer  of  his  worde  etce  shuld 
receave  And  doo  we  not  take  ye  obstinate  papist  to  be  suche 
Therefore  if  we  enforce  ye  papistes  to  ye  coinunion  we  doo  it 
against  Goddes  lawe  and  y°  lawe  of  ye  realme  and  against 
there  our  ownof  conscience  and  ours  the  papijtca.j;  Et  qui 
edificat  contra  conscientia  edificat  ad  gehenna  wherefore  for 
ye  honour  of  God  for  ye  reverence  of  ye  sacrament  and  saftie 
of  mens  solles  cause  the  enforcement  to  ye  comunion  to  be 
quyte  putt  out  of  the  bill. 

[IV.]  "  To  ye  other  mattier  Poule  saith  y'  corpora  nra 
sut  membra  Christi.  Of  ye  wiche  it  is  to  be  gathered  that 
our  bodies  also  be  partakers  of  Christ  as  it  is  well  seen  by  ye 
comunion.  There  ye  first  consell  of  Nice  I  reade  Cyrill  and 
Calvine  also  tfettt§  saye  that  our  bodyes  shall  rise  againe  to 
life  e£er||  everlastynge  bycause  they  be  partakers  of  Christis 
imortall  bodye." 


»  Sic.  in  MS,  f  Sic.  in  MS,  +  Sic.  in  MS. 

§  Sic.  in  MS.  ||  Sic.  in  MS. 


205 

Now  Mr.  Goode,  remarking  upon  Bishop  Geste's  Letter 
of  Deer.  22,  1566,  says,  (p.  6)  :— 

"  From  this  letter  it  seems,  that  the  words,  '  the  body  of  Christ,' 
etc.,  inserted  in  the  28th  Article  in  the  revision  of  1562,  were  pro- 
posed by  Bishop  Geste,  and  proposed  by  him  (with  a  subtility  to  be 
regretted)  under  the  notion  that  they  admitted  his  doctrine  of  the 
presence  of  our  Lord's  body  in  the  elements. 

"  This  is  the  utmost  that  the  advocates  of  Bishop  Geste's  doc- 
trine of  the  presence  can  extract  from  this  letter  in  their  favour." 

But  need  they  wish  to  "  extract "  more  ?  It  is  enough 
surely  for  those  who  hold  the  doctrine  of  the  Real  Objective 
Presence,  to  be  able  to  maintain — that  they  are  entitled  to 
hold  and  teach  that  doctrine  because  the  terms  of  the  Article 
do  "  not  exclude"  it,  and  that  this  is  affirmed  by  the  Bishop 
who  drew  up  the  Article.  They  demand,  and  justly  demand, 
complete  toleration,  at  least,  for  what  they  believe  to  be  much 
more  than  an  opinion,  yet  certainly  (as  they  think)  an  opinion 
meant  to  be  comprehended  by  the  language  of  the  Article. 
Nor  will  they  object  to  be  accused,  with  Bishop  Guest,  of 
"  subtilty,"  if  by  that  is  meant  refinement,-  convinced  that 
nicety  of  definition  is  not  inappropriate  to  the  subject  of  the 
Eucharistic  Presence  :  though  they  would  repudiate  any  in- 
tention of  cunning  or  artifice,  and  might  think  it  unbecoming 
in  Mr.  Goode  to  impute  it  to  Bishop  Guest,  if  here,  as  else- 
where, he  is  indulging  that  license  of  judgment  which  un- 
fortunately he  is  apt  to  betray  towards  the  motives  of  his  op- 
ponents. 

Mr.  Goode  admits,  indeed  (p.  7),  that, 

"...  under  some  circumstances,  it  might  have  been  difficult  to 
show,  that  those  who  agreed  to  the  Articles  in  the  Convocation  of 
1562,  did  not  use  these  words  in  the  same  sense  as  that  attached  to 
them  by  Bishop  Geste.  But,"  he  adds,  "  fortunately  these  Articles 
were  passed  in  Convocation  with  the  addition  of  another,  namely 
the  29th,  which  I  shall  now  show,  by  Bishop  Geste's  own  testimony, 
to  be  entirely  irreconcileable  with  his  view  of  the  presence,  and 
which  therefore  excludes  his  interpretation  of  the  28th.  And  ac- 
cordingly we  find  that  he  did  not  subscribe  the  Articles  in  the  Con- 
vocation of  1562.  (See  Lamb's  Historical  Account  of  the  xxxix. 
Articles.) 

"  Now  what  Bishop  Geste  himself  held  to  be  the  doctrine  main- 


206 

tained  in  Article  29,  he  himself  shall  inform  us  :  as  also  how  far  he 
would  have  been  glad  subsequently  to  modify  the  phraseology  of 
Article  28." 

In  proof  of  his  statements  he  then  proceeds  to  quote  §  §  8, 
9,  10  and  11  of  the  Document  above  printed. 

But,  first  of  all,  Mr.  Goode  (unless  I  mistake  his  words) 
argues  upon  an  assumption  which,  to  say   the  least,  is  quite 
unwarranted  by  the  commonly  received  theory  of  the  prin- 
ciple which  guided  the  framers  of  the  Articles,  viz.,  a  desire 
of  comprehension.     If  that  theory  be  true  (and  there  seems 
no  reason  to  dispute  its  accuracy)  it  surely  was  not  requisite 
that  all  "  those  who  agreed  to  the  Articles  in  the  Convocation 
of  1562  " should  use  these  words  ['after  an  heavenly  and 
spiritual  manner  onely ']  in  the  same  sense  as  "  Bishop  Guest 
did.    Considering  the  various  opinions  which  were  then  held, 
as  to  the  nature  and  mode  of  the  Presence,  all  that  the  accep- 
tors needed  to  secure  was — that  the  language  of  the  Articles 
did  not  condemn  such  diversities  as,  it  was  understood,  were 
meant  to  be  tolerated.     To  imagine  that  Guest's  doctrine  was 
unknown  to  the  Convocation,  or  that  (as  Mr.  Goode  says,  p. 
11)  he  "penned  the  words  .  .  .  with  the  secret  intention  of 
understanding  them  as  he  has  explained  them  in  his  letter  to 
Cecil ;"  and  that,  consequently,  he  and  the  Convocation  passed 
the  Article  with  entirely  opposite  objects,  is  a  notion  wholly 
devoid  of  foundation,  and  totally  alien  to  the  important  po- 
sition he  occupied  in  the  revision  of  both  the  Prayer  Book 
and  the  Articles :  the  opinions  of  the  man  who  was  intimately 
associated  with  Cecil  and  Parker  in  that  work,  and  who  was 
substituted  by  Cecil,  in  the  time  of  the  Archbishop's  illness, 
to  aid  in  preparing  the  Prayer  Book  of  1559,  were  not  likely 
to  be  hidden  from  the  Convocation  of  that  day.     That  those 
opinions  ran  in,  what  would  be  called,  a  Roman  direction,  is 
sufficiently  disproved  by  the  fact  that,  in  his  answers  to  the 
Secretary   touching  certain    proposed    emendations   in   the 
Prayer  Book,  (1)  he  thought  it  needless  to  use  the  proper 
Eucharistic  Vestments  ;  (2)  proposed  such  a  division  of  the 
Eucharistic  Office,  that  non-communicants  should  not  remain 
throughout  ;  (3)  considered  it  not  convenient  "  to  continue 


207 

the  use  of  praying  for  the  dead  in  the  Communion ;"  (4)  ad- 
vised the  omission  of  the  Prayer  of  Consecration  as  it  stood 
in  Edward's  1st  Book  ;  (5)  said  that  the  Sacrament  should  be 
received  in  the  hand  and  not  in  the  mouth ;  (6)  and  deemed 
it  "indifferent"  whether  the  communicants  partook  of  it 
standing  or  kneeling. — Strypes  Ann.  Vol.  i.,  p.  83. 

Mr.  Goode  further  contends  that  the  29th  Article,  as  un- 
derstood by  Guest,  was  "  entirely  irreconcileable  with  his  view 
of  the  Presence/'  (p.  7),  and  "  consequently  was  fatal  to  his 
mode  of  interpreting  the  28th,"  (p.  1 1). 

But  it  is  noticeable  that  the  words  objected  to  by  Bishop 
Guest,  in  §  11,  are  not  the  words  which  ultimately  appeared 
in  the  Article,  or  in  its  title :  he  complains  that  in  the  Book 
about  to  be  presented  for  the  Queen's  authentication,  "  there 
is  this  Article.  Evill  men  receave  not  ye  bodye  of  Christ :" 
and  he  uses  the  same  word  three  other  times  in  the  course  of 
his  objections  in  this  Section,  besides  three  times  employing 
the  expression,  "take  eat."  Yet  neither  of  these  words 
"receive"  and  "  take"  occur  at  all,  either  in  the  heading  or  in 
the  body  of  the  29th  Article  of  1571.  Was  this  a  mere  over- 
sight of  the  writer  ?  It  is  difficult  to  believe  in  such  an  ab- 
sence of  accurate  quotation  on  the  part  of  one  so  intimately 
acquainted  with  the  Articles  as  Guest  necessarily  was,  and 
that,  too,  on  an  occasion  when  he  was  complaining  of  words 
and  phrases — the  more  so  as,  in  all  the  other  instances  in  this 
Letter,  he  cites  the  Articles  exactly.  May  it  not,  then,  have 
been  the  case  that  some  change  was  made  in  the  English  title* 
of  this  Article  before  the  Articles  were  presented  to  the 
Queen  for  ratification  ?  If  so,  it  must  have  been  before  May 
llth,  as  on  that  day  they  were  signed  by  the  Bishops,  in- 
cluding Guest  himself;  and  this  fact  of  his  subscription  at 
that  time  to  the  English  copy  of  the  Articles  (Lamb,  p.  30), 
helps  to  determine  the  date  of  this  Document  now  under  con- 
sideration ;  for  if  it  be  Guest's  (and  there  seems  every  reason 
to  believe  that  he  was  the  author  of  it)  there  can  be  no 

*  The  title  of  Article  xxix.,  as  signed  by  Guest,  on  May  11,  1571,  is,  "The 
wicked  do  not  eate  the  Body  of  Christe  in  the  use  of  the  Lord's  Supper."— &* 
Lamb's  Reprint. 


208 

reasonable  doubt  tbat  it  was  written  prior  to  May  llth,  and 
that  his  objections  having  been  then  in  some  way  satisfied,  he 
was  able  to  concur  with  his  Episcopal  brethren  in  attesting, 
by  his  signature,  his  acceptance  of  the  Articles ;  though,  pro- 
bably, not  his  e'ntire  approval  of  some  of  their  language.  Mr. 
Goode,  indeed,  (p.  13)  chooses  to  make  a  most  unfair  and  un- 
charitable insinuation  against  the  Bishop  for  thus  acting  :  he 
says : — 

"  That  Bishop  Geste,  almost  immediately  after  penning  the  above 
letter  to  Lord  Burleigh,  should  subscribe  the  Articles,  including  the 
29th,  is,  I  suppose,  to  be  accounted  for  from  what  some  modern 
writers  would  style,  *  The  necessities  of  his  position  ;'  but  it  is  a  fact 
which  does  not  seem  very  creditable  to  his  candour.  It  did  not, 
however,  go  without  its  reward,  for  by  the  end  of  the  year  he  was 
promoted  to  Salisbury." 

Now,  as  Mr.  Goode  does  not  offer  a  particle  of  evidence  to 
sustain  his  inuendo,  and  as  there  is  nothing,  so  far  as  I  am 
aware,  in  what  is  recorded  of  Bishop  G  uest's  character,  to 
justify  such  a  surmise  ;  this  suggestion  of  unworthy  motives 
may  be  dismissed  with  the  remark — that  that  Prelate's  con- 
duct in  signing  the  Articles  is  apparently  more  consistent 
with  candour  than  is  Mr.  Goode's  in  censuring  him  for  his 
act. 

That  the  Articles  did  undergo  a  variety  of  changes  of  more 
or  less  importance  during  the  Convocation,  which  began  April 
3,  and  ended  May  30,  1571,  is  plain  from  such  slight  notices 
of  its  proceedings  as  remain  in  the  Abstract  made  by  Dr. 
Heylin  before  its  records  were  destroyed  in  the  Fire  of 
London.  Bennett  (Hist,  of  Articles,  pp.  261 — 3)  has  quoted 
from  this  a  description  of  what  occurred  on  the  very  day  when 
the  Articles  were  signed  by  the  eleven  Bishops,  of  whom 
Guest  was  one,  which  seems  to  suggest  that,  probably,  it  was 
on  this  occasion  that  that  Prelate  was  satisfied  :  he  says : — 

"  Fryday,  May  11,  the  Bishops  being  met  in  a  low  Parlour  at 
Lambeth,*  de  et  super  rebus  Ecclesiae  et  libro  articulorum  de  doc- 
trina  (ut  apparuit)  secrete  semotis  omnibus  arbitris  tractarunt ; 
which  may  perhaps  have  been  the  subject  of  that  two  hours  Con- 
ference, which  they  had  afterwards  on  Wednesday,  May  23.  Sess.8." 

*  Whither,  on  "  May  the  4th,  the  Convocation "  had  "  been  adjourned  .  .  . 
because  of  the  Archbishop's  indisposition,  as  it  seemeth,  .  .  ." — Strype's  Parker, 
Bk.  iv.,  p.  319. 


209 

It  is,  indeed,  extremely  likely  that  the  question  of  the  re- 
adoption  of  Article  29  occupied  a  material  place  on  this 
occasion  (see  also  Hardwick,  p.  154,  and  Swainson,  p.  32), 
and  that  the  Meeting  was  held  for  the  very  purpose  of  dis- 
cussing the  points  raised  in  Guest's  supposed  Letter  to  Bur- 
leigh  :  the  opinions  of  such  a  ,man  could,  hardly  be  disre- 
garded, and  as  it  is  not  probable  that  he  suddenly  abandoned 
what,  plainly,  he  had  been  holding  for  at  least  the  five  years 
preceding  (apparently  very  much  longer),*  yet  did  then  sub- 
scribe, there  is  certainly  fair  ground  for  believing  either  that 
some  alteration  was  made,  or  that  he  was  convinced  of  the 
phraseology  of  the  29th  Article  being  not  at  variance  with 
his  belief.  That  the  Archbishop  was  ready  to  meet  as  far  as 
he  could  the  difficulties  which  beset  this  question,  seems 
plain  from  the  occurrence  related  in  his  Letter  to  Lord  Bur- 
leigh  on  June  4th  (Parker  Correspondence,  No.  cclxxxix., 
p.  381),  when,  apparently,  the  Articles  were  waiting  for  the 
Queen's  ratification.  For,  though  he  retained  his  opinion  as 
to  the  applicability  of  the  passage  quoted  from  St.  Augustin, 
it  seems  (see  Sennet,  chap.  24)  that  he  afterwards  "  removed  " 
the  reference  from  the  margin  of  the  Article,  when  some 
copies  had  been  struck  off,  and  so  left  the  appeal  to  St. 
Augustine  more  general.  It  is,  moreover,  worthy  of  notice, 
that  this  marginal  reference  to  St.  Augustine  is  not  in  the 
copy  (as  reprinted  by  Dr.  Lambe)  signed  by  Guest  on  May 
11,  1571.  If  Guest  (though  I  doubt  it)  was  the  author  of 
this  objection,  the  Archbishop's  course  further  confirms  the 
view  here  suggested. 

Now  Guest's  objection  to  the  29th  Article  arose  from  his 
opinion  that  it  was  "  quite  contrarie  to  ye  Scripture  and 
to  y*  doctrine  of  the  Fathers  :"  he  thought  moreover  (and 
indeed  with  a  kind  of  prophetic  mind,  considering  what  has 
since  happened)  that  it  would  "cause  much  busynes  ;"  there- 
fore he  was  anxious  for  its  omission,  or  for  some  modification 
of  it,  so  as  to  avoid  these  evils.  But  it  is  quite  easy  to  con- 

*  For  in  1548  he  published  "A  Treatise  agaiuste  the  Prevee  Masse,"  in 
which  occurs  the  passage  given  at  p.  193,  as  illustrating  his  Letter  of  December 
22,  1566. 

E    E 


210 

ceive  of  Archbishop  Parker  having  satisfied  him  that  there 
was  nothing  in  the  language  of  the  Article  which  contradicted 
the  authorities  he  had  referred  to,  or  the  view  which  he  had 
expressed  in  §  1 1  of  his  Letter.  For  it  is  clear  from  Guest's 
language  in  this  very  Section  that  he  never  could  have  re- 
garded "  all  men  which  be  of  y*  churche,  and  of  the  profes- 
sion of  Christ,  whether  they  be  good  or  bad,  faithfull  or  un- 
faythefull,"  as  "partakers  of  Christ,"  in  the  Sacrament,  in 
that  sense  wherein  our  Lord  spake  when  He  said  to  Simon 
Peter,  «  If  I  wash  thee  not  thou  hast  no  part  with  Me."  If, 
then,  the  Archbishop  could  convince  Guest  (as  surely  was 
not  difficult)  that  this  expression  of  the  Article  was  not  in- 
consistent with  his  belief — that  "  Judas  as  evill  as  he  was  did 
receave  Christis  bodye,  because  Christ  saied  unto  him  take 
eate  this  is  my  bodye  " — seeing  that  the  very  same  Father 
(St.  Augustine)  who  was  cited  in  the  Article  held  the  same  * 
belief  respecting  Judas — Guest  might  naturally  and  con- 
sistently withdraw  his  opposition,  and  unite  in  a  statement 
which  had  obtained  the  concurrence  of  his  brethren. 

Mr.  Goode  asserts  that  "  Bishop  Geste's  own  testimony" 
proves  the  29th  Article  "to  be  entirely  irreconcileable  with 
his  view  of  the  presence  "  and  one  "  which  therefore  excludes 
his  interpretation  of  the  28th "  (p.  7)  and  is  "  fatal  to  his 
mode  of"  explaining  it  (p.  11).  But,  first  of  all,  it  must  be 
observed  that  Guest  distinctly  repeats  in  §  9  of  this  Letter 
the  precise  explanation  of  the  words  "  after  a  spirituall  and 
heavenly  maner  only"  which  he  had  given  in  his  former 
Letter  ;  and  he  speaks  of  their  introduction  into  the  Article, 
in  such  a  way  as  entirely  to  destroy  Mr.  Goode's,  not  exactly 
charitable,  theory  that  "  he  himself  penned  "  them  "  with  the 
secret  intention  of  understanding  them  as  he  has  explained 
them  in  his  Letter  to  Cecil  of  December  22,  1566."  For  it 
seems  utterly  beyond  belief  that  his  former  assertion  should 
have  remained  unnoticed,  so  far  as  anything  appears  to  the 

*  "  The  Lord  Himself  endureth  Judas,  a  devil,  a  thief,  and  His  hetrayer :  He 
allows  him  to  receive  among  the  innocent  disciples,  what  the  faithful  know  to 
be  our  Ransom." — Up.  43,  ad  Glor.  Eleus.,  §  23,  p.  99.  Dr.  Pusey's  Catena, 
p.  503. 


211 

contrary,  and  that  he  should  have  ventured  to  assert  again  (in 
a  Document  obviously  not  designed  merely  for  the  Secretary's 
own  private  perusal)  that  "  it  was  putt  in  onely  to  this  ende, 
to  take  awaye  all  grosse  and  sensible  presence  " — thereby,  in 
fact,  as  it  seems  to  me,  claiming  for  that  interpretation  of  it 
the  assent  of  the  Convocation — unless  he  well  knew  that  such 
a  statement  did  not  admit  of  contradiction.  If  however,  this 
later  Letter  was  not  written  by  Bishop  Guest,  then  it  much 
increases  the  very  difficulty  which  Mr.  Goode  seeks  to  re- 
move ;  for  the  writer,  whoever  he  was,  becomes  a  most  impor- 
tant witness  to  the  truth  of  that  positive  statement  made  by 
Bishop  Guest,  but  which  Mr.  Goode  ventures  to  deny. 

This  consideration  alone  seems  to  warrant  us  in  drawing, 
from  Guest's  language  about  the  29th  Article,  a  conclusion 
materially  different  from  that  which  Mr.  Goode  has  furnished : 
for  if,  as  I  venture  to  maintain,  the  silence  of  the  Bishops  ad- 
mits the  truth  of  Guest's  allegation  respecting  the  28th 
Article  ;  then  if  it  does  not  disprove  Mr.  Goode's  assertion 
— "  that  the  meaning  attached  to  the  words  of  the  28th 
Article  by  Bishop  Guest  was  not  that  in  which  they  were 
passed  by  Convocation"  (p.  11) — it  shows  that  it  was  a 
meaning  not  designed  to  be  excluded ;  and  therefore  I  sub- 
mit that,  whereas  Mr.  Goode  says  (p.  7)  "  no  sense  can  be 
placed  on  Article  28,  which  is  not  consistent  with  the  doc- 
trine delivered  in  Article  29,"  it  would  be  truer  and  more 
pertinent  to  state — that  to  disallow  an  interpretation  of  Art. 
29  which  is  consistent  with  Guest's  explanation  of  Art.  28, 
is  to  ignore  the  mind  of  the  Convocation  of  1571  which 
passed  them  both.. 

In  further  defence,  however,  of  his  theory  Mr,  Goode 
contends  (p.  11)  that — 

"  Even  irrespective  of  that  addition  [of  Art.  29]  it  would  seem 
that  the  words  [of  Art.  28]  appeared  to  others  to  enunciate  so 
clearly  a  diiferent  doctrine  from  that  which  Bishop  Geste  ascribed 
to  them,  that  even  Bishop  Cheney,  who  would  have  been  glad  to 
have  subscribed  them  in  that  sense  could  not  conscientiously  do  so. 
And  Bishop  Geste  himself,  on  second  thoughts,  would  have  liked  to 
eliminate  the  word  '  only,'  in  order  to  save  Cheney  from  con- 


212 

demnation ;  which  shows  that  Parker  and  the  Bishops  before  whom 
he  was  convened  did  not  interpret  the  word  in  the  sense  attached  to 
it  by  Geste." 

Upon  this  passage  I  remark  (1)  First,  that  if  it  be  meant  that 
Cheney  concurred  with  "  others"  in  construing  the  disputed 
words  differently  from  Guest,  it  by  no  means  follows  that  he 
and  they  spoke  the  mind  of  those  who  passed  the  Article : 
from  the  little  that  seems  known  of  Cheney's  opinion  it  ap- 
pears that  he  held  a  somewhat  physical  notion  of  the  Real 
Presence,  though  not  maintaining  Transubstantiation:  for 
Strype  (Cranmer  p.  461)  says,  that,  in  the  Convocation  of 
1553,  he  "owned  the  Presence  with  the  Papists,  but  denied 
the  Transubstantiation;"  and  again  (Ann.  1 .  282),  after  re- 
marking that  Goodman  accused  him  of  being  a  Papist,  says, 
"But  I  do  not  find  anywhere  that  he  was  indeed  of  that 
faith,  any  further  than  that  he  was  for  the  real,  that  is  the 
corporal,  presence  of  Christ  in  the  Sacrament."  This  seems 
confirmed  by  Guest's  words  in  his  letter  of  December  22, 
1566,  where  he  states  that  he  told  Cheney  he  "  wold  speake 
against  him  herein,"  i.e.,  apparently,  for  advocating  that  the 
Body  of  Christ  in  the  Sacrament  was  in  some  kind  of  way 
cognizable  by  the  senses  as  distinct  from  faith ;  and  his  re- 
marks in  §  9  of  the  letter  of  1571  seem  to  imply  the  same 
opinion  as  being  still  held  by  Cheney:  for  he  observes, 
"And  whereas  it  is  saied  bycause  ye  mouthe  receavethe 
Christis  body,  therefore  it  is  sensibly  receaved ;  the  conse- 
quent is  not  true  bycause  ye  mouthe  in  receaving  Christis 
bodye,  doeth  not  feel  it  nor  taste  it,  nor  we  by  any  other 
sense  do  perceave  it."  Moreover  Campian  the  Jesuit, 
writing  to  Cheney  in  Nov.,  1571,  exhorted  him  to  return  to 
the  Church  for  "  that  he  was  more  tolerable  than  the  rest  of 
the  heretics,  because  he  held  the  presence  of  Christ  in  the 
Sacrament"  (Strype  Ann.  i.  2S2)  i.e.  his,  Campian's,  view  of 
the  Presence.*  If  this  were  so  it  would  sufficiently  account 

*  A  consideration  this  which  surely  suggests  how  Mr.  Goode  really  answers 
himself  when  he  says  (p.  16),  "Another  testimony  that  the  Bishops  of  that  day 
did  not  hold  the  doctrine  of  the  real  presence  of  Christ's  body  and  blood  in  the 
elements,  may  be  found  in  the  fact  that  Campiau,  one  of  the  Romish  divines  of 


213 

for  Cheney's  objection  to  the  phrase  and  for  his  continuing 
still  to  oppose  it,  notwithstanding  Guest's  explanation  of  its 
design :  he  "  could  not  conscientiously "  subscribe  it  in 
Guest's  "  sense'*  if,  as  would  seem,  he  held  a  notion  of 
"grosseness  and  sensibleness  in  ye  receaving"  of  the  Sacra- 
ment, which  Guest  told  him  the  words  were  meant  to  "  ex- 
clude." 

That  Cheney  did  (about  the  date  of  Guest's  Letter  of 
1566)  hold  some  opinion  on  the  Eucharistic  Presence  ma- 
terially different  from  the  opinions  of  his  Episcopal  brethren,* 
seems  clear  from  a  Letter  written  by  Jewel  to  Bullinger  on 
Feb. 24,  1567,  in  which  he  says— "One  alone  of  our  number, 
the  bishop  of  Gloucester,  hath  openly  and  boldly  declared  in 
Parliament  his  approval  of  Luther's  opinion  respecting  the 
Eucharist,  but  this  crop  will  not,  I  hope,  be  of  long  con- 
tinuance." (Zurich  Letters,  1st  Series,  p.  185.)  But  as 
Guest,  both  in  1566  and  1571,  quotes  Jewel's  language  as 
being  confirmatory  of  his  own  statements  touching  the  Real 
Presence,  we  are  necessarily  led  to  conclude  that  there  was  a 
difference  between  the  belief  of  Cheney  and  Guest  on  this 
subject. 

(2.)  Next,  I  would  observe  that  Guest's  willingness  "  to 
eliminate"  the  word  "  onely"  or,  as  Mr.  Goode  also  expresses 
it  (p.  7)  "to  modify  the  phraseology  of  Art.  28,''  on  Cheney's 
account,  is  no  proof  at  all  that  "  Parker  and  the  Bishops" 
held  a  different  interpretation  of  it  from  Guest ;  rather  I 
conceive  it  shews  their  agreement.  Because  (a)  though  he 
thought  (§  9)  "  if  this  worde  onely  were  put  out  of  ye  booke 
for  his  [Cheney's]  sake  it  were  ye  best,"  he  clearly  held  that 

that  period,  speaks  of  Cheney  as  more  tolerahle  than  the  rest  of  the  heretics, 
and  distinguished  from  them  as  holding  the  true  presence  of  Christ  on  the  altar 
.  .  .  ."  The  Italics  are  Mr.  Goode's.  Compare  Ridley  (p.  60)—"  That  Heavenly 
Lamb  is"  etc.  See  also  Bishop  Guest's  "  Treatise  against  the  Preevee  Masse," 
1548  ".  .  .  .  the  worthy  counsayle  of  Nice  wryteth  to  the  disalowance  of  tran- 
substantiation  in  sorte  thus,  let  us  not  grossely  beholde  the  bread  and  wyne 
proposed  and  set  before  our  eyes  but  in  faythe  consider  the  Lambe  of  God  in 
that  hys  sacred  table  having  our  heartes  elevated  and  uplifted.  .  .  ." — P.  82. 
Ed.  184& 

*  Mr.  Goode  himself  allows  this,  for  he  says  (p.  16).  "And  Camden  speaks 
of  Cheney  as  distinguished  from  his  brethren  by  being  Luthero  addictissimum, 
a  warm  adherent  of  Luther." 


214 

it  made  no  real  difference  to  the  meaning  of  the  Article,  for 
in  this  same  section  he  repeats  distinctly  that  interpretation 
which  Mr.  Goode  denies  to  be  the  true  one.  Again  (b)  there 
is  nothing  to  shew,  so  far  as  I  know,  that  Cheney  was  in 
danger  of  "  condemnation"  by  the  Bishops'  for  holding 
Guest's  interpretation  of  the  Article,  though  he  may  have 
been  cited  for  teaching  the  doctrine  which  I  just  now  sug- 
gested that  he  maintained :  he  had  been  excommunicated  in 
Synod,  in  April,  "  for  absence  and  contumacy "  (Strype  Ann. 
i.  £81);  but  I  have  failed  to  discover  anything  to  shew  what 
were  the  "  certain  errours  whiche  he  is  accused  to  holde"  and 
which  Guest  says  he  was  to  "  be  cited  to  answer  before  the 
Archbishop  and  other  bishoppes." 

It  may,  further,  be  noticed  that  §  8  also  manifests  Guest's 
real  object  in  proposing  any  alteration  in  the  terms  of  the 
28th  Article,  though  he  himself  was  fully  content  with  its 
wording  :  his  design  clearly  was  to  obviate  the  difficulties  of 
others  by  using  language  which,  while  not  obnoxious  to 
them,  should  yet  convey  the  sense  in  which  he  declared  the 
Article  to  have  been  framed :  thus  "  by  cause  some  men  for  a 
more  playnes  wold  have  added  this  word  truely  or  in-dede," 
he  said  "  it  were  well  to  putt  it  in"  thus — "  The  body  of 
Christ  is  in  dede  gyven  taken  and  eaten  in  ye  supper ;"  and 
he  quotes  the  language  of  Calvin  and  Jewel  as  a  reason  for 
admitting  the  proposed  phrase.  Probably,  in  this  suggestion, 
he  designed  also  to  meet  the  objection  of  Bishop  Cheney. 

Mr.  Goode  still  further  endeavours  to  fortify  his  position 
by  the  following  observation  (p.  12)  : — 

"  It  is  worthy  of  remark,  also,  that  the  very  word  which  Arch- 
deacon Denison  would  wish  us  to  suppose  is  to  be  understood  in  the 
interpretation  of  the  words,  that  we  receive  the  body  of  Christ  by 
faith  only,  namely  '  profitably,'  was  proposed  for  insertion  by  Bishop 
Geste,  but  was  not  inserted." 

But  the  non-insertion  of  this  word  is  no  proof  that  it  was 
rejected;  if,  indeed,  it  could  be  shewn  that  this  was  done, 
and  done  on  the  plea — that  to  insert  it  would  alter  the  sense 
of  the  Article — some  ground  would  be  furnished  for  the 


215 

notion  (which  I  suppose  Mr.  Goode  means  to  impute  to  the 
Bishops)  that  a  "  lively  faith"  is  the  necessary  condition  for 
reception  of  the  Body  of  Christ.  Guest's  design  in  proposing 
the  word,  was  to  hinder  the  "  miche  strife"  which  the  words 
of  the  Article  caused  in  reference  to  "this  question,  whether 
ye  evill  do  receave  Christis  Body  in  ye  sacrament,  bycause  they 
lacke  faithe :"  yet  the  very  form  of  his  proposal  shews  that 
he  did  not  consider  the  word  to  be  necessary  to  such  a  con- 
struction of  the  Article  as  included  his  own  belief;  and  if 
this  was  his  view,  it  is  not  difficult  to  understand  that,  even 
supposing  his  Episcopal  brethren  did  not  share  his  interpre- 
tation (though  I  am  not  admitting  such  to  have  been  the 
case)  they  would  prefer  to  retain  language  which  covered 
their  diverse  opinions  on  what  was  not  a  matter  of  essential 
belief;  whereas  the  addition  of  the  word  would  be  a  very 
likely  bar  to  the  Subscription  of  those  who  did  not  hold  the 
doctrine  of  reception  by  the  wicked ;  and  might  even  raise 
difficulties  in  the  case  of  those  who  held  that,  Christ  being 
present  in  the  -Sacrament,  His  Body  was  given  to  all,  and  all 
received  It,  but  that  It  was  not  eaten  of  the  wicked  because 
from  such  He  then  withdrew  Himself.  Besides,  they  might 
well  think  that  the  language  they  had  adopted  was  most 
consonant  to  the  general  character  of  the  words  both  of  our 
Lord  and  of  St.  Paul,  and  therefore  the  more  advisable  to  be 
retained,  considering  the  range  of  opinions  which,  it  is  well 
known,  the  Articles  were  designed  to  include. 

Mr.  Goode,  however,  (p.  13,  discovers  another  proof 
({ that  Archbishop  Parker  disagreed  with  Bishop  Geste  in  his 
view  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Eucharist,"  from  the  language  of 
the  Archbishop's  Letter  to  Lord  Burleigh,  of  June  4,  1571, 
in  which  he  "  expressly  defends  the  29th  Article  against 
those  who  had  endeavoured  to  prejudice  him  [Burleigh] 
against  it." 

But  this  is  assuming,  what  has  to  be  proved, — that  Guest 
was  the  objector  on  this  occasion — a  most  improbable  thing, 
seeing  that  he  had  signed  the  Articles,  including  the  29th,  on 
May  llth,  nearly  a  month  before.  So  then,  when  Parker 
says  that  St.  Augustine's  language  "  doth  plainly  affirm  our 


216 

opinion  in  the  Article  to  be  most  true,  however  some  men  vary 
from  it,"  the  very  word  "  our"  would  most  naturally  seem  to 
include  Guest,  and  therefore  to  recognise  his  interpretation  of 
the  Article  as  not  disagreeing  with  the  Archbishop's  "  view 
of  the  doctrine  of  the  Eucharist." 

It  must  be  remembered,  too,  that  Guest  had  expressly  cited 
Theodoret,  in  §  11  of  his  letter,  as  supporting  his  doctrine  of 
reception  by  the  wicked,  in  these  words  : — 

"But  'he  shall  be  guilty  of  the  Body  and  Blood,'  showeth  this, 
that  like  as  Judas  betrayed  Him,  and  the  Jews  insulted  Him,  so 
they  dishonour  Him,  who  receive  His  all-holy  Body  with  impure 
hands,  and  bear  It  to  their  denied  mouth." 

Yet  St.  Augustine,  whose  authority  Archbishop  Parker 
appealed  to  in  the  Article,  and  defended  when  it  was  de- 
murred to,  had  said  the  same  thing ;  his  words  are:  — 

"Ye  remember  of  what  it  is  written,  'Whoso  shall  eat  the 
Bread  or  drink  the  Cup  of  the  Lord  unworthily,  shall  be  guilty  of 
the  Body  and  Blood  of  the  Lord/  And  when  the  Apostle  said  this, 
the  discourse  was  upon  the  subject  of  those  who,  treating  the  Lord's 
Body  like  any  other  food,  took  it  in  an  undiscriminating  and  negli- 
gent way.  If  then  this  man  is  rebuked  who  does  not  discriminate, 
that  is,  see  the  difference  of,  the  Lord's  Body  from  other  meats,  how 
must  he  be  damned,  who,  feigning  himself  a  friend,  comes  to  His 
table  as  a  foe." — Horn.  Ixii.  on  St.  John.  Dr.  Pusey's  Catena, 
p.  516. 

Further,  in  one  of  the  Homilies  of  1562,  circulated  under 
the  express  sanction  of  Archbishop  Parker,  it  is  distinctly 
said  : — 

"  If  they  be  worthy  blame  which  kiss  the  prince's  hand  with  a 
filthy  and  unclean  mouth,  shalt  thou  be  blameless  which,  with  a 
stinking  soul  .  .  .  dost  breathe  out  iniquity  and  uncleanness  on  the 
bread  and  cup  of  the  Lord  ?" — Second  Part  of  the  Sermon  concerning 
the  Sacrament. 

Comparing  these  three  statements,  I  would  ask — is  there 
any  such  contradiction  or  discrepancy  between  them  as 
would  argue  a  serious  difference  of  doctrine  among  those 
who  appealed  to  them  ?  rather,  are  they  not  of  such  sub- 
stantial identity  as  to  encourage,  if  not  to  compel,  the  belief 


217 

that  Parker  and  Guest  could  have  had  no  difficulty  whatever 
in  interchanging  them  as  consistent  expressions  of  the 
opinions  which  they  held  on  this  subject  ? 

It  is  possible,  indeed,  that  the  person,  who  suggested  the 
objection  to  Burleigh,  was  Cheney  or  some  one  holding  the 
opinion  ascribed  to  him  at  p.  212:  in  that  case,  what  I  have 
just  said  touching  the  opinions  of  the  Archbishop  and  of 
Bishop  Guest  would  be  strengthened,  and  Parker's  language  in 
adhering  to  the  quotation  from  St.  Augustine  would  be 
satisfactorily  explained.* 

Mr.  Goode  produces  (t  a  still  further  testimony"  to  prove 
what  were  Archbishop  Parker's  views  on  the  Real  Presence, 
and  to  shew  that  those  views  were  opposed  to  Bishop  Guest's : 
but  certainly  it  is  not  a  little  surprising  that  that  "testimony" 
should  be  the  Anglo-Saxon  Homily  of  ^Elfric  on  the  "  Pas- 
chall  Lamb"  to  which  I  have  referred  at  p.  68 — a  Homily, 
the  "agreement"  of  which  "with  the  tract  of  Ratramn  is  [as 
the  Editors  of  the  Oxford  Edition  of  Ratramn,  1838,  ob- 
serve] not  only  doctrinal,  but  very  often  verbal:"  this  con- 
sideration is  one  reason  why,  as  I  suppose,  it  has  commonly 
been  regarded  as  an  important  witness  to  the  English  Church's 
belief  of  the  Real  Objective  Presence  in  contradistinction  to 
that  mode  of  Presence  which  Transubstantiation  is  held  to 
involve. 

First  of  all,  Mr.  Goode  draws  attention  to  the  circumstance 
— that  the  Preface  to  the  Homily  is  "  signed  by  Archbishop 
Parker  and  the  Archbishop  of  York,  and  thirteen  other 
Bishops  (but  not  by  Guest  or  Cheney):"  meaning,  I  suppose, 
thereby  to  imply  that  they  disapproved  the  Homily.  But  to 
this  three  answers  may  be  made:  (1)  That  the  Preface  from 
which  Mr.  Goode  quotes,  states  the  names  attached  to  have 
been  j  oined  "With  divers  other  personages  of  honour  and  credit : 
subscribing  their  names,  the  record  whereof  remains  in  the 

*  It  seems  to  me  a  point  quite  open  to  discussion  whether  the  objection  to 
St.  Augustine's  authority  came  from  this  side  of  the  controversy  at  all.  In  another 
publication  ("  Lawful  Church  Ornaments,'1  p.  251)  I  ventured,  in  1857,  to  raise 
this  question,  in  opposition  to  Strype's  statement  that  "  some  Papist  had  been 
nibbling  at  this  new  Article."  The  information  requisite  for  deciding  the  point 
is  still  undiscovered. 

F  F 


218 

hands  of  the  most  reverend  father  Matthewe  Archbishope  of 
Canterburye  :"*  therefore  Guest  and  Cheney  may  have  been 
among  those  "  personages."  (2)  That  while  Guest  and  Cheney 
are  not  found  among  the  published  subscriptions,  neither 
does  so  important  a  name  as  that  of  Jewel  appear,  nor  are  the 
names  of  some  other  Bishops  attached,  e.g.,  Chester,  Bath  and 
Wells,Exeter,  Peterborough,  St.  Asaph,  Oxford.  (3)  That  the 
signatures  were  appended  not,  apparently,  to  recommend  the 
doctrine  of  the  Homily,  but,  as  the  Preface  states,  to  shew 
that— 

"  these  here  under  written  upon  diligent  perusing  and  comparing 
the  same  [Homily  and  old  auncient  bookes]  have  found  by  con- 
ference, that  they  are  truely  put  forth  in  print  without  any  adding 
or  withdrawing  anything  for  the  more  faithfull  reporting  of  the 
same,  and  therefore  for  the  better  credit  hereof  have  subscribed 
their  names." 

Next,  Mr.  Goode  inaccurately  includes  in  what  he  terms 
the  "  condemnatory  notice"  in  the  Preface,  "  of  some  things 
in  this  Homily,"  the  sentence  '  where  it  speaketh  ...  of  the 
mixture  of  water  with  wyne  :'"  but  the  note  at  p.  40,  upon 
the  words,  "Holy  bookes  commaund  that  water  be  mengled  to 
the  wine  which  shall  be  for  housell,"  is  in  these  word,  "  No 
Scripture  inforceth  the  mixture  of  water  with  the  wyne": 
plainly  shewing  that  the  intention  was  not  to  condemn  the 
ancient  practice,  but  to  guard  against  what  the  Preface  seems 
to  consider  as  "  greate  ignoraunce  and  superstition,"  viz.,  that 
the  "  command"  had  a  Divine  as  well  as  an  Ecclesiastical 
authority,  and  therefore  made  the  mixed  Chalice  essential  to 
the  Sacrament. 

Further,  Mr.  Goode  remarks  (p.  14),  that — 

"  The  doctrine  of  the  Homily  in  the  part  here  [i.e.  the  Preface] 
referred  to  with  comparative  approbation,  is  undeniably  not  that  of 
a  real  presence  of  Christ's  body  in  or  under  the  elements,  but  that 
the  elements  become  in  a  mystical  and  spiritual  sense  Christ's  body 
and  blood,  as  having  a  spiritual  power  and  influence  imparted  to 
them." 

In  proof  he  quotes  pp.  15  to  23,  italicizing,  as  shewing  the 

*  The  MS.  does  not  appear  to  be  among  the  MSS.  in  the  Lambeth  Library. 


219 

sort  of  Presence  he  speaks  of,  the  words  which  I  have  so  dis- 
tinguished in  the  following  sentences  from  his  extract : — 

(1)  "Now  saye  we  to  suche  men,  that  some  thynges  be  spoken  of 
Christ  by  signification,  some  by  thyng  certain."  (2.)  "  Truely  the 
bread  and  the  wine  which  by  the  masse  of  the  priest  be  halowed, 
sliewe  one  thyng  without  to  Jiumayne  understanding,  and  an  other 
thing  they  call  within  to  believing  minds.  Without  they  bee  sene 
bread  and  wine  both  in  figure  and  in  tast :  but  they  be  truely  after 
the  halowing  Christes  body  and  hys  bloude  through  ghostly  mystery." 
(3.)  "  Much  is  betwixte  the  invisible  myghte  of  the  holye  housel, 
and  the  visible  shape  of  hys  proper  nature.  It  is  naturally  cor- 
ruptible bread  and  corruptible  wine :  and  is  by  myghte  of  God's 
worde  truely  Christes  bodye  and  hys  bloude  :  not  so  notwithstanding 
bodeley,  but  ghostly"  (4.)  .  .  .  .  nothing  is  to  be  understoode  therein 
bodelye ;  but  all  is  ghostly e  to  be  understood" 

But  surely  these  italicized  words  which  Mr.  Goode  regards 
as  adverse  to,  are  rather  confirmatory  of,  "  a  Real  Presence 
of  Christ's  Body  in  or  under  the  elements  :  "  they  plainly  in- 
deed declare  against  any  "bodely,"  i.e.,  physical  Presence, 
but  they  no  less  clearly  pronounce  for  a  Presence  which  is 
"ghostly/'  i.e.,  spiritual,  though  withal  Real.  In  truth>  the 
word  "  within,"  which  occurs  in  the  second  sentence  may  not 
unfairly  be  claimed  as  a  witness  for  that  "  in  or  under  "  which 
Mr.  Goode  rejects  ;  and  the  italicized  words  in  sentences  (3) 
and  (4)  may  well  be  deemed  the  equivalents  of  Bishop  Guest's 
"  after  a  heavenly  and  spirituall  and  no  sensible  manner." 

(§9)- 

Mr.  Goode  has,  however,  omitted  to  call  attention  to  the 

important  word  "  truely,"  which  occurs  three  times  in  these 
same  sentences — the  very  word  which.  Bishop  Guest  (§  8)  was 
willing  to  have  inserted  in  Art.  23  to  meet  the  case  of  some 
who  desired  "a. more  playnes"  in  its  terms.  Neither  has  he 
particularly  noted  the  words  "  is  in  "  which  I  put  in  italics  in 
the  following  sentence  which  he  quotes :  — "  Whatsoever  is  in 
that  housel  which  giveth  substance  of  life,  that  is  of  the 
ghostly  might,  and  invisible  doing  "— words  again  which  can- 
not well  be  summarily  dismissed  as  condemning  the  "  in  or 
under"  which  is  supposed  to  be  so  obnoxious  to  "the  doctrine 
of  the  homily." 


220 

It  would  seem,  however,  that  Mr.  Goode  is  not  satisfied 
with  the  doctrine  even  as  he  interprets  it ;  for  he  says,  "  This 
is  not  precisely  the  doctrine  of  our  best  divines,"  quoting 
Hooker,  EccL  Pol  V.,  Ixvii.  6,  and  then  he  adds  "But  it  is 
very  different  from  what  is  called  the  doctrine  of  the  Real 
Presence,  and  the  difference  between  it  and  the  sounder  doc- 
trine delivered  by  Hooker,  is  comparatively  of  secondary  im- 
portance."    Yet  if  this  Homily  is,  as  Mr.  Goode  says,  a 
"  testimony  of  Archbishop  Parker's  views  ;  "  if  its  doctrine  is 
spoken  of  "  in  the  way  of  commendation  "  by  him  and  the 
other  fourteen  Bishops  who  signed  the  Preface ;  if,  moreover, 
the  doctrine  so  approved  is  to  be  taken,  as  Mr.  Goode  implies, 
as  explanatory  of  the  meaning  of  that  28th  Article  which 
these  Bishops  agreed  upon — what  is  this   but  saying  that 
Hooker  held   "a   sounder   doctrine,"  touching  the  Eucha- 
ristic  Presence,  than  the  Elizabethan  Bishops  delivered  in 
the  Article  which  they  Subscribed  themselves  and  put  forth 
to  be  Subscribed  by  all  the  Clergy  of  the  Realm  ?     Would 
Hooker  have  admitted  this  ?     Can  the  answer  be  doubtful  ? 
Having  thus  considered  at  some  length,  and  I  hope  satisfac- 
torily answered,  Mr.  Goode's  remarks  upon  those  passages  in 
this  Letter,  which  relate  to  the  28th  and  29th  Articles,  I  now 
proceed  to  notice  some  other  statements  in  the  same  Letter, 
which,  I  think,  further  tend  to  shew  the  fallacy  of  those  con- 
clusions which  Mr.  Goode  has  drawn  from  it. 

It  will  be  seen  that  Bishop  Guest,  (the  supposed  writer)  does 
not  confine  his  objections  to  these  two  Articles;  for  the 
xviith  and  xxvth  are  alike  the  objects  of  his  censure  :  he 
commences  his  Letter  (§  1)  by  urging  that  "Thees  wordes 
(suo  consilio  nobis  quidem  occulto)*  are  to  be  put  out  of  ye 
book  for  three  causes  "  which  he  then  mentions :  again,  (§  2) 
he  complains  that  the  words  "Furthermore  we  must  receave 
Goddes  promises  in  such  wise,  as  they  be  generally  set  forthe 
to  us  in  holy  Scripture,"  which  occur  in  the  last  clause  of  the 
Article,  "  be  not  playne  ynoughe ;  "  and,  once  more,  (§  3)  he 
expresses  his  opinion  that  the  words  "  In  our  doyenges  that 

*  These  words  are  not  in  the  JEnylish  version,  in  the  Fac- simile  of  the  "  Little 
Booke,"  printed  by  Dr.  Lambe. 


221 

will  of  God  is  to  be  folowed  wiche  we  have  expressly 
declared  unto  us  in  ye  worde  of  God,"  forming  part  of 
the  same  clause,  "  be  dangerous."  But  all  these  three  ex- 
pressions (which  are  found  in  our  present  17th  Article)  were 
retained  in  that  English  copy  of  the  Articles  which  Bishop 
Guest  signed  on  May  llth,  1571. 

So,  too,  in  regard  to  the  25th  Article,  the  Bishop  wished 
(§  4)  to  insert  the  word  "  salvation  "  in  the  sentence  "  By  the 
which  he  dothe  work  invisibly  in  us."  Again,  he  proposed 
(§  5)  that  the  second  clause — "  There  are  two  Sacraments 
ordeyned  of  Christ  our  Lorde  in  ye  gospel" — should  read 
thus :  "  In  this  sort  there  be  but  two  sacraments,  baptisme  and 
ye  Lordes  supper."  Further  (§  6)  he  considered  it  was  "not 
true  in  all  poyntes  "  to  declare,  as  stated  in  the  third  clause, 
"  that  thees  fyve  commonly  called  sacramentes  that  is  to  saye 
confermation  penance  orders  matrimonie  and  extreme 
annoyling  are  not  to  be  accompted  for  sacramentes  of  the 
gospell ;  and  (§  7>  he  also  saw  it  "not  to  be  true"  to  speak  of 
them  as  "  Beinge  suche  as  have  growen  partely  of  ye  corrupt 
folowynge  of  ye  apostles"  if  "  thees  wordes"  were  "ment"  to 
refer  to  "  confirmation*  penance  orders  matrimonie."  This 
clause  of  the  Article  he  therefore  wished  to  be  altered  in  the 
form  he  gives  at  the  end  of  §  7,  "  Confirmation,"  etc. 

But,  as  in  the  case  of  the  17th  Article  so,  in  this,  the 
phraseology  was  adhered  to,  and  Guest  signed  the  Articles 
notwithstanding  the  objections  put  forward  in  the  Letter. 

Now  how  are  we  to  account  for  this  ?  Mr.  Goode's  solu- 
tion of  the  difficulty,  in  respect  of  Articles  28  and  29,  has 
been  already  noticed  (pp.  205, 208) ;  I  must  presume  he  would 

*  It  is  worth  observing  that  the  same  objection^  so  far  as  regards  Confir- 
mation, was  made  by  the  Puritans  at  the  Hampton  Court  Conference,  30  years 
later.  (Car dwell  Hist.  Conf.,  p.  181.)—"  In  the  third  point  (which  was  about 
Confirmation)  was  observed  either  curiosity  or  malice,  because  the  Article  which 
was  then  presently  read,  in  those  words :  (  These  five,  commonly  called  sacra- 
ments, that  is  to  say,  confirmation,  penance,  orders,  etc.,  are  not  to  be  accounted 
for  sacraments  of  the  gospel,  being  such  as  have  grown  partly  of  the  corrupt  fol- 
lowing of  the  apostles,'  etc.,  insinuateth  that  the  making  of  confirmation  to  be  a 
sacrament  is  a  corrupt  imitation ;  but  the  Communion  Book,  aiming  at  the  right 
use  and  proper  course  thereof,  makes  it  to  bo  according  to  the  Apostles'  example; 
which  his  Majesty  observing,  and  reading  both  the  places,  concluded  the  objection 
to  be  a  meer  cavil.  And  this  was  for  the  pretended  contradiction." — 2nd  Day's 
Conference,  January  I4.th,  1603. 


resort  to  the  same  explanation  in  reference  to  Articles  1 7  and 
25 :  I  prefer  the  more  charitable  and  the  more  likely  opinion 
— that  he  became  convinced  of  the  language  not  being 
unsound,  though  it  was  not  what  he  considered  the  most 
appropriate  to  obviate  difficulties  and  to  meet  objections.  It 
would  needlessly  encumber  these  pages,  and  would  be  quite 
foreign  to  their  purpose,  to  discuss  the  points  raised  in  this 
Letter  upon  the  17th  and  25th  Articles,  with  a  view  to 
reconcile  their  language  with  the  objections  of  Bishop  Guest : 
but  it  will  be  convenient  to  cite  the  words  of  the  Homily 
"  Of  Common  Prayer  and  Sacraments*  as  bearing  upon  his 
remarks  on  the  25th  Article. — 

"  Now  with  like,  or  rather  more  brevity,  you  shall  hear  how  many 
sacraments  there  be,  that  were  instituted  by  our  Saviour  Christ,  and 
are  to  be  continued  and  received  of  every  Christian  in  due  time  and 
order,  and  for  such  purpose  as  our  Saviour  Christ  willeth  them  to  be 
received.  And  as  for  the  number  of  them,  if  they  should  be  con- 
sidered according  to  the  exact  signification  of  a  sacrament,  namely, 
for  the  visible  signs,  expressly  commanded  in  the  New  Testament, 
whereunto  is  annexed  the  promise  of  free  forgiveness  of  our  sins, 
and  an  holiness  and  joining  in  Christ,  there  be  but  two,  namely, 
Baptism  and  the  Supper  of  the  Lord.  For  although  absolution  hath 
the  promise  of  forgiveness  of  sin ;  yet  by  the  express  word  of  the 
New  Testament  it  hath  not  this  promise  annexed  and  tied  to  the 
visible  sign,  which  is  imposition  of  hands.  For  this  visible  sign  (I 
mean  laying  on  of  hands)  is  not  expressly  commanded  in  the  New 
Testament  to  be  used  in  Absolution,  as  the  visible  signs  in  Baptism 
and  the  Lord's  Supper  are  :  and  therefore  Absolution  is  no  such 
sacrament  as  Baptism  and  the  Communion  are.  And  though  the 
ordering  of  ministers  hath  his  visible  sign  and  promise  ;  yet  it  lacks 
the  promise  of  remission  of  sins,  as  all  other  sacraments  besides  the  two 
above  named  do.  Therefore  neither  it,  nor  any  other  sacrament  else 
be  such  sacraments  as  Baptism  and  the  Communion  are.  But 
in  a  general  acception,  the  name  of  a  sacrament  may  be  attributed  to 
that  thing,  whereby  an  holy  thing  is  signified.  In  which  under- 
standing of  the  word,  the  ancient  writers  have  given  this  name,  not 
onely  to  the  other  five,  commonly  of  late  years  taken  and  used  for 
supplying  the  number  of  the  seven  sacraments  ;  but  also  to  divers 
and  sundry  other  ceremonies,  as  to  oil,  washing  of  feet,  and  such 
like  ;  not  meaning  thereby  to  repute  them  as  sacraments  in  the  same 

signification   that  the   two   forenamed   sacraments  are And 

although  there  are  retained  by  the  order  of  the  Church  of  England, 
.  .  .  certain  other  rites  and  ceremonies  about  the  institution  of 
ministers  in  the  church^  matrimony,  confirmation  of  children 


and  likewise  for  the  visitation  of  the  sick  ;  yet  no  man  ought  to  take 
these  for  sacraments  in  such  signification  and  meaning  as  the  sacra- 
ment of  Baptism  and  the  Lord's  Supper  are  :  but  either  for  godly 
states  of  life,  necessary  in  Christ's  Church,  and  therefore  worthy 
to  be  set  forth  by  public  action  and  solemnity,  by  the  ministry  of  the 
Church,  or  else  judged  to  be  such  ordinances  as  may  make  for  the 
instruction,  comfort,  and  edification  of  Christ's  Church." 

Now,  comparing  this  passage  with  §  §  4,  5,  6  &  7  of  the 
Letter  to  Burleigh,  is  there  not  such  identity  of  language  as 
to  shew  that  the  same  hand  might  have  written  both  ?  But 
this  9th  Homily  had  been  set  forth  by  Archbishop  Parker 
and  the  other  Bishops  nine  years  before,  and  was  now  again 
authoritatively  recognized  as  containing  "  a  godly  and  whole- 
some doctrine,"  in  the  35th  of  those  very  Articles  then  awaiting 
the  Royal  Sanction.  Is  it  at  all  an  improbable  conjecture 
— that  Guest  was  referred  to  the  Homily  for  proof  that  the 
25th  Article  did  mean  what  he  thought  it  might,  in  words, 
more  clearly  convey  ?  Would  not  this  be  quite  sufficient  to 
account  for  the  relinquishment  of  his  objection,  and  for  his 
consenting  to  sign  the  Article  ?  If  so,  does  not  this  con- 
sideration support  the  theory  for  which  I  am  contending — 
that  Guest  was  convinced  that  the  language  of  the  Articles, 
to  which  he  had  been  demurring,  was  not  repugnant  to  the 
doctrine  which  he  held,  and,  therefore,  that  he  could  consis- 
tently attach  his  signature  ? 

No  doubt,  too,  Guest  felt  that  having  made  this  last  attempt 
to  get,  what  he  considered,  a  more  accurate  phraseology  intro- 
duced into  these  Articles,  it  was  simply  the  path  of  modest 
duty  to  concur  by  his  signature  in  the  decision  of  "  ye  most 
of  [the]  Bishops,"  and  to  set  an  example  of  Subscription 
(though  it  was  not  required  from  the  Bishops  by  the  13th 
Eliz.  c.  12),  unless  he  was  convinced  that  those  Articles 
really  embodied  unsound  doctrine.  Bennet,  indeed,  thinks 
(p.  187)  that  Guest's  Subscription  at  this  time  proves  that  he 
"  came  off  from  those  notions  afterwards  "  which  he  had  held 
about  the  Real  Presence  "  (as  divers  persons  in  those  early 
daies  entertained  different  opinions  at  different  times  about 
the  Sacrament) "  :  but  then  Bennet,  apparently,  was  entirely 
ignorant  of  the  existence  of  these  Letters  of  1566  and  1571, 


224 

else  he  must  have  sought  for  some  other  reason  to  account  for 
Guest's  signature  to  "  that  very  [29th]  Article  in  the  Convo- 
cation of  1571." 

With  regard  to  the  question  of  Cheney's  subscription, 
Sennet  says : — 

"  Nor  do  I  believe,  that  Bishop  Cheney  did  ever  subscribe  the 
Twenty-ninth  Article.  For  tho'  the  13  Eliz.  c.  12  obliged  the  in- 
ferior Clergy  to  Subscription  ;  yet  the  Bishops  are  exempted  from 
that  necessity  by  the  very  Letter  of  the  Act." 

It  may  be  quite  true  that,  as  Mr.  Goode  supposes,  Cheney 
"would  have  been  glad  to  have  subscribed"  the  Articles,  as 
as  well  Guest;  though  not,  as  I  have  argued  at  p.212,  "in  that 
sense  "  which  Guest  puts  upon  the  29th  ;  but,  unless  he  was 
constrained  to  do  so  by  any  other  authority  than  that  of  the 
Statute,  it  can  hardly  be  doubted  that  he  would  be  anxious  to 
avoid  Subscription  himself  (though  obliged  to  enforce  it  upon 
his  Clergy),  if  he  continued  to  hold  that  opinion  of  the  Real 
Presence,  which  there  seems  ground  for  believing  that  he  did 
maintain  in  May,  1571. 

Having  regard,  then,  to  the  various  considerations  now 
offered,  I  must  confess  myself  unable  to  think  with  Mr. 
Goode,  that  "  the  question  thus  raised  "  by  Bishop  Guest's 
Letter  of  Deer.  22,  1566,  which  "has  been  appealed  to  as 
determining  the  sense  of  the  28th  Article  in  a  direction  very 
different  from  that  which  has  been  ordinarily  attributed  to 
it/'  can  "  be  easily  set  at  rest,  and  the  interpretation  thus 
given  to  the  28th  Article  be  shewn  to  be  inadmissible  "  (p.  1) : 
on  the  contrary,  it  seems  to  me  that,  although  some  obscurity 
still  overhangs  the  subject,  the  view  I  have  now  presented 
will,  at  least,  bear  a  favourable  comparison  with  that  which 
Mr.  Goode  has  drawn,  and  requires  some  strong  shadow  to  be 
thrown  upon  it,  before  it  can  be  dissolved  into  his  picture. 

Some  additional  light  is,  however,  cast  upon,  what  I  have 
represented  as,  Guest's  opinions  at  this  time,  in  Parts  II. 
and  III.  of  his  Letter  to  Burleigh  (see  pp.  201 — 4),  wherein  he 
argues  "  toching  coming  to  ye  Church,  and  receaiving  ye 
sacrament."  The  Bill  to  which  these  words  relate  is  con- 
veniently referred  to  in  the  following  passage  of  Mr.  Swain- 


son's  Essay  on  Article  xxix. :  I  have  verified  the  dates,  and 
added  the  words  enclosed  in  brackets:  speaking  of  the  Par- 
liament which  met  on  April  2,  1571,  he  says  (p.  15):  — 

"  The  Queen  intended  to  bring  at  least  one  Bill  concerning  Re- 
ligion before  tbe  House.  That  Bill  was  against  the  introduction  of 
Popish  Bulls  into  the  country.  It  is  uncertain  whether  she  sanctioned 
"  The  Bill  concerning  coming  to  Church,  and  receiving  the  Holy 
Communion,"  which  was  read  a  first  time,  April  4.  The  Bill  may 
have  been  a  Government  measure,  and  it  may  be  desirable  to  trace 
it  through  the  Houses.  It  was  read  the  second  time,  April  6,  and 
committed  (D'Ewes,  p.  157).  Mr.  Fleetwood,a  *  Church  Reformer,' 
speaking  against  some  of  its  provisions,  it  came  in  a  new  form  from 
the  Committee,  April  9 :  [and  again  "  was  read  the  first  time  " 
(D'Ewes,  p.  159),  it  seems  also  to  have  had  another  reading,  and 
was  discussed,  April  llth  (D'Ewes,  p.  161),]  was  read  a  second 
time,  April  20  (D'Ewes,  p.  176) :  re-committed  [with  additions,] 
April  21  ;  ingrossed,  April  30  :  read  a  third  time  and  passed,  May 
4 :  received  in  Upper  House,  May  5  :  [probably]  read  first  time, 
May  7  :  second  time  and  committed,  May  9  :  third  time  (with 
amendments)  ["  conclusa  dissentientibus  Comitibus  Wigorn  and 
Southampton,  and  Dominis  Windsor,  and  Vaux]  May  17  :  received 
in  the  Lower  House  and  conference  ordered,  May  19  :  *  ordered 
upon  the  question  to  be  general  as  to  the  body  thereof,'  May  22 : 
[in  the  Lords,  May  24,]  another  conference,  May  24  :  again  in  the 
Lords,  May  25.  In  the  Journals  of  the  Lords  it  is  here  marked 
conclus.  But,  for  some  cause  or  other,  the  Bill  did  not  become  law. 
No  Act  answering  to  the  description  received  the  Royal  Assent  this 
Session." 

I  may  add,  that  no  similar  Act  was  passed  during  the  rest 
of  Elizabeth's  reign,  though  two  Acts  were  made,  so  far  like 
it,  as  to  require  attendance  at  Church,  but  not  enjoining  the 
reception  of  the  Sacrament :  viz.,  23  Elizabeth  c,  1,  A.D.  1581, 
"An  Act  to  retain  the  Queen's  Majesty's  Subjects  in  their  Due 
Obedience;"  and  35  Elizabeth  c.  1,  A.D.  1593,  bearing  the 
same  title. 

Now  an  examination  of  this  part  of  Guest's  Letter,  to 
which  I  have  just  referred,  will  probably  shew  the  true 
"  cause  "  why  "  the  Bill  did  not  become  Law :"  if,  as  I  have 
argued,  p.  207,  it  was  written  before  May  llth,  that  date 
corresponds  with  the  date,  May  5tk,  at  which  the  Bill  was 
received  in  the  Lords:  there  it  was  amended,  on  May  17th, 
upon  the  third  reading ;  and  when  it  got  back  to  the  Com- 

G    G 


226 

mons  there  was  a  Conference  "  as  to  the  body  thereof."  All 
this  looks  very  much  as  if  the  Amendments  of  the  Upper 
House  materially  affected  the  value  of  the  Bill  in  the  eyes  of 
the  Lower;  and,  when  we  come  to  read  the  objections  of 
Bishop  Guest,  the  conclusion  seems  almost  unavoidable  — 
that  the  Bill  did  not  pass  in  consequence  of  his  remonstrances, 
which,  probably  enough,  took  form  and  substance  in  the 
"  Amendments  "  noticed. 

It  will  be  seen  that  this  portion  of  Guest's  Letter  consists 
of  two  Parts,  the  latter  of  which  (marked  [III.],  p.  202)  is 
mainly  a  repetition  and  enlargement  of  Part  [II.]  :*  the  writer 
himself  supplies  the  reason  for  this  ;  he  says,  "  That  which 
for  hast  I  wrote  confusely  and  un perfidy  before,  I  have  sent 
you  amended."  This  circumstance  confirms,  moreover,  the 
suggestion  just  made — that  the  Letter  was  called  forth  by 
the  introduction  of  the  Bill  into  the  House  of  Lords — and, 
further,  helps  to  fix  the  date  of  the  Letter  itself,  which  I 
think  may  now  be  fairly  held  to  lie  between  May  5th,  the 
day  on  which  the  Bill  reached  the  Lords  ;  and  May  llth,  the 
day  on  which  Guest  signed  the  Articles. 

Two  things  are  clear  from  this  remonstrance  of  Guest : 
frst,  that  he  was  no  favourer  of  the  Roman  party ;  for  so  far 
as  the  Bill  was  meant  "  to  dryve  papistes  to  ye  church  I 
thinke  it,"  he  says,  "  both  lawfull  and  necessaire  :"  next,  that 
he  was  entirely  opposed  to  compelling  them  to  communicate  ; 
for  he  says,  "  To  enforce  them  to  receave  I  thinke  it  utterly 
to  be  unlawfull." 

Whence  arose  this  important  distinction  which  he  drew  in 
their  case  ?  Plainly  because,  as  he  himself  shews,  the  two 
acts  involved  such  very  different  consequences  :  he  said  ([III.] 
[l.B  b]  )  that  "  ye  papistes  wiche  be  in  an  errour  ought  to  be 
dryven  by  ye  lawe  to  come  to  ye  churche  to  heare  ye  Worde 
of  God  there  redde  and  preached  and  with  all  ye  comon 
prayers  yl  they  may  be  brought  from  it ;"  whereas,  he  adds 

*  For  facility  of  reference  I  have  marked  by  similar  numbers  the  correspond- 
ing arguments  in  the  two  Parts  :  the  Numbers  not  bracketed  are  in  the  MS.  It 
•will  be  seen  that  all  the  arguments  are  repeated  in  Part  [III.]  (though  in  a  some- 
what different  order)  except  No.  2.  [B],  shewing  that  self-examination  is  a  con- 
dition of  worthy  receiving. 


227 

([  II.]  [8.Bb]),  "  If  ye  papist  be  enforced  to  receave  ye  Sacra- 
ment he  taketh  it  to  his  condemnation  bycause  he  judgeth  it 
not  to  be  ye  Lordes  body  and  so  receaveth  it  unworthily  (as 
it  is  in  Poule);"  and,  as  he  had  said  before  ([II.]  l.[B]), 
"  what  were  it  els  but  to  go  aboute  to  destroye  them,  And 
we  have  no  power  saith  Poule  to  destroye  but  to  edifie." 

But,  upon  what  doctrinal  ground  did  the  writer  thus  urge 
this  danger  to  {( the  papistes  "  in  being  "  enforced  to  receave 
ye  Sacrament?"  Clearly,  it  seems  to  me,  because  he  be- 
lieved the  Real  Objective  Presence  :  whereas  "the  papistes" 
believed  the  Sacrament,  as  then  celebrated  in  the  Church  of 
England,  to  be  no  Sacrament  ([II.]  7.  [B]) :  because,  (1), 
they  alleged  (  [II.]  [9.  B]  and  [III.]  9.  [B  b])  there  was  "no 
consecration,"  owing  to  the  absence  in  "  ye  Communion  booke" 
of  certain  manual  acts  ([III.]  9.[B  b]):  because  (2)  they  further 
held  (Ibid)  that  the  absence  of  the  word  "  thereby,"  in  the 
Prayer  of  Consecration,  shewed  that  "  the  wordes  "  of  that 
prayer  were  not  meant  to  "  applye  .  .  to  ye  breade  and  wyne 
to  make  them  to  be  meanes  to  receave  by  the  body  and 
bloude  of  Christ ;  wiche  giveth  us  to  understand,  that  it  is 
ment  there  that  Christ's  body  is  not  gyven  us  by  y°  Sacra- 
ment but  otherwise  spiritually  onely  by  faith  wich  is  deeu 
both  when  we  receave  and  when  we  doo  not :"  because  (3) 
they  also  said  (Ibid)  that  the  rest  of  the  Prayer  was  "  spoken 
in  ye  waye  of  a  storie  and  not  for  entention  of  consecration  :'* 
because  (4)  they  argued,  and  the  writer  admitted  ([III.] 
[8.  B  b]  )  that  the  Sacrament  was  not  consecrated  or  ministered 
with  "  yeentent  of  ye  [i.e.,  that]  churche  "  which  "saithe  that 
the  bread  is  transubstantiated,  and  that  Christis  body  is  there 
really ;"  whereas,  says  the  writer,  "  our  ministers  doo  con- 
secrate* but  to  this  ende  and  entent,  to  make  ye  Sacrament 
of  Christis  body  as  it  is  in  heaven  and  not  as  it  is  in  ye  Sacra- 
ment." f 

*  He  had  Avritten  here  "and  minister,"  but  afterwards  erased  it;  shewing 
how  accurate  he  wished  to  be  in  his  language. 

f  Compare  the  following  passage  from  Guest's  "Treatise  on  the  prevee 
masse,"  1548  : — "  These  wordes,  take,  eat,  in  these  wordes  of  the  institution  of 
the  Lorde's  Supper,  take,  eate,  this  is  My  bodye,  be  no  wordes  of  makinge  of 


228 

The  writer  of  the  Letter,  however,  disallowed  (as  his  lan- 
guage plainly  implies)  these  objections  of  "  the  papistes  "  to 
be  any  disproof  of  the  validity  of  the  Sacrament ;  thereby,  in 
fact,  claiming  that  Presence  which  was  wholly  independent  of 
the  faith  or  misbelief  of  the  receiver,  and  so  rendered  the  un- 
worthy partaker  obnoxious  to  the  judgment  to  which  the 
writer  deprecated  exposing  "  the  papistes  "  by  a  Legal  enact- 
ment. 

It  was,  then,  in  consequence  of  this  entire  belief  of  the 
writer  in  the  reality  of  the  Church  of  England's  Eucharist, 
that  he  pleaded  against  the  enforced  communion  of  "  the 
papistes"  on  these  grounds — That  ([II.]  3.  [B]  and  [III.] 
[3.  B  b])  it  was  to  disobey  the  command  of  Christ,  who 
"forbiddeth  us  to  give  an  holy  thing  unto  dogges :"  that 
([II.]  2.  [B])  it  was  to  disregard  St.  Paul's  warning  of 
their  danger,  who,  neglecting  self-examination,  received 
unworthily  ;  and  (  [II.] -4.  [B]  and  [III.]  [4.  B  b]  )  to  neg- 
lect his  admonition  "  to  shone  an  heritique  after  ones  or  twise 
warnynge:"  that  (  [II.]  5.  [B]  and  [III.J  [5.  B  b]  )  it  was 
to  despise  the  example  of  St.  Chrysostom,*  who  "  saith,  that 


the  Lorde's  body,  but  of  presenting  and  exhibiting  the  same  to  the  receauers  of 
the  ryghte  supper  of  the  Lord.  So  that  it  is  full  open  that  the  prieste  can  neither 
consecrate  Christis  body,  neither  make  it.  Howbeit  this  is  alwaye  grauntable, 
ye  minister  both  consecrateth  and  maketh,  though  not  Christes  body  and  bloud, 
yet  thallotted  bread  and  wyne  ye  Sacramentes  exhibitive  of  the  same.  For 
where  as  ye  bread  and  wyne  used  at  the  Lordes  Supper  were  prophane  and  un- 
holy, before  the  wordes  of  the  institution  of  the  sayd  supper  were  duely  reported 
upon  them.  Nowe  after  thee  due  reporte  and  utterance  of  tbee  sayd  wordes  by 
thee  minister,  upon  thee  before-named  bread  and  wyne,  they  be  consecrate  and 
made  of  prophane  the  holy  sacramentes  exhibitues,  of  Christes  body  and  bloud. 
Thus  also  meaned  the  fathers  by  these  words,  consecration  and  making  in  this 
Sacramente.  Nowe  to  transubstantiatyon  or  tornekynde,  thee  next  entreatable 
matter,  which  is  no  lesse  disallowable,  then  disceaueable.  How  can  tbys  stande 
with  our  fayth  that  Christes  body  (whose  creatyon  is  unrenuable)  shulde  be 
again  made  of  the  nature  of  bread  (a  vyle  creature)  through  the  exchange  of  the 
nature  thereof  into  hys,"  etc.  P.  79.  Ed.  1840. 

*  "  Let  no  one  communicate  who  is  not  of  the  disciples.  Let  no  Judas  re- 
ceive, lest  he  suffer  the  fate  of  Judas.  This  multitude  also  is  Christ's  body. 
Take  heed,  therefore,  thou  that  ministerest  at  the  Mysteries,  lest  thou  provoke 
the  Lord,  not  purging  this  body.  Give  not  a  sword  instead  of  meat. 

"  But  if  thou  darest  not  do  it  thyself,  bring  him  to  me ;  I  will  not  allow  any 
to  dare  to  do  these  things.  I  would  give  up  my  life  rather  than  impart  of  the 


he  had  rather  dye  then  he  wold  wittingly  gyve  ye  Sacrament 
to  any  man,  whom  he  knewe  wold  take  it  unworthely :"  that 
([II.]  6.  [B]  and  [III.]  [6.B  b])  it  was  to  give  no  heed  to  "  The 
Communion  booke  "  which  "  willeth  none  to  receave  wiche  is  a 
blasphemer  of  God  or  an  hinderer  or  slanderer  of  his  worde  :" 
that  (  [II.]  8,  [B]  )  therefore  it  was  to  make  light  of  "  syne 
against  his  conscience  wiche  is  deadly  syne." 

Wherefore,  because  of  these  weighty  considerations — that 
([III.]  [6.Bb])  to  "  enforce  ye  papistes  to  ye  Communion  we  do 
it  against  goddes  lawe  and  ye  lawe  of  ye  realme,  and  against 
their  conscience  and  ours,"  he  entreats  Lord  Burleigh  "  for 
ye  honour  of  God,  for  ye  reverence  of  ye  sacrament  and  saftie 
of  men's  solles,  cause  the  enforcement  to  ye  Communion  to 
be  quyte  putt  out  of  the  Bill." 

Nor  did  he,  as  it  seems,  plead  in  vain  ;  for,  as  I  have 
already  remarked  (p.  226),  the  proposal  to  compel  the  adhe- 
rents of  the  Pope  to  Sacramental  Communion  was  entirely 
abandoned. 

It  cannot,  surely,  be  reasonably  doubted  (considering  es- 
pecially the  reference  to  St.  Chrysostom's  strong  language) 
that  the  writer  believed  distinctly  the  doctrines  of  the  Real 
Objective  Presence  and  of  Reception  by  the  Wicked  ;  but 
these  are  precisely  the  doctrines  advocated  by  Guest  in  the 
former  portion  of  this  very  same  Letter  :  what,  then,  is  the 
legitimate  inference  ?  Certainly,  as  I  must  think,  that  the 
man  whose  counsel,  apparently,  prevailed  to  arrest  this  Bill 
by  the  Doctrinal  pleas  which  he  advanced,  could  hardly  have 
had  his  proposals,  as  to  the  28th  and  29th  Articles,  rejected 
because  his  belief  on  the  Eucharistic  Presence  was  opposed  to 
that  of  the  rest  of  the  Episcopate,  as  Mr.  Goode  contends : 
on  the  contrary,  if,  as  it  seems  extremely  probable,  his  in- 
fluence defeated  this  Parliamentary  attempt  to  coerce  the 
Romanists  to  Communion,  by  his  assertion  of  the  practical 
consequences  of  a  doctrine  which  he  obviously  assumes  to  be 

Lord's  Blood  to  the  unworthy ;  and  will  shed  my  own  blood  rather  than  impart 
of  such  awful  Blood  contrary  to  what  is  meet." — (Horn.  Ixxxii.,  §  6,  p.  1094) 
Dr.  Pusey's  Catena,  p.  572. 


230 

the  recognized  one ;  it  may  very  fairly  be  thought  that,  as  I 
have  already  argued,  his  advice  upon  those  Articles  was  only 
not  adopted,  except,  apparently,  as  to  the  important  altera- 
tion in  the  Title  of  Art.  xxix.  (see  p.  207),  because  the 
changes  he  proposed  were  not  needed  to  bring  them  into 
harmony  with  the  Theological  belief  of  himself  and  of  his 
brethren,  who  unitedly  signed  them  on  May  llth,  1571. 

The  concluding  paragraph  of  this  Letter  ([IV.])  suggests 
that  some  "  other  mattier  "  was  also  under  discussion  at  that 
time,  and  that  Bishop  Guest's  opinion  was  asked  or  offered  in 
reference  to  it :  the  passage  does  not  afford  the  means  of  de- 
ciding what  the  precise  point  was  ;  but,  from  the  apparent 
reference  to  those  words  of  the  prayer  of  access  in  "  ye  Com- 
munion" Office,  "  grant  us,  therefore  (gracious  Lord),  so  to 
eat  the  Flesh  of  Thy  dear  Son  Jesus  Christ,  and  to  drink  His 
Blood,  that  our  sinful  bodies  may  be  made  clean  by  His  Body 
.  .  ."  it  would  seem  that  some  question  had  been  raised 
touching  the  corporal  relation  between  Christ  and  Christians 
in  virtue  of  the  Incarnation.  But,  whether  this  conjecture  is 
right  or  not,  the  answer  shews  the  writer's  belief — that  in  the 
reception  of  the  Eucharist  there  was  a  participation  of  Christ 
so  real  as  to  affect  not  the  soul  only,  but  the  body  also  :  a 
belief  which  he  might  well  treat  (for  his  words  imply  it)  as 
being  the  received  doctrine,  considering  the  language  of  the 
Homily*  then  in  circulation.  Yet,  does  not  this  further  in- 
volve the  same  writer's  belief  of  a  Real  Objective  Presence  in 
that  Sacrament  ?  And,  if  so,  have  we  not  here  Bishop  Guest 
again  proclaiming,  in  fact,  (in  no  hesitating  manner,  as  if  it 
were  merely  his  own  opinion)  that  belief,  with  all  its  conse- 
quences, just  as  he  had  done  before  in  treating  specifically  of 
the  29th  Article  ? 

If  this  supposition  be  true  respecting  this  last  portion  of 
the  Letter,  it  confirms  what  I  have  said  concerning  Guest's 

*  "...  thus  much  we  must  be  sure  to  hold,  that  in  the  Supper  of  the  Lord 
there  is  ....  the  Communion  of  the  body  and  blood  of  the  Lord,  in  a  marvellous 
incorporation  ....  wrought  in  the  souls  of  the  faithful,  whereby  not  only  their 
souls  live  to  eternal  life,  but  they  surely  trust  to  win  to  their  bodies  a  resurrection 
to  immortality." — Horn,  of  Set.,  parti- 


231 

opinions  as  developed  in  the  previous  portions  :  yet,  if  this  be 
not  its  purport,  there  is  nothing  in  the  passage  at  variance 
with  the  rest  of  the  Letter,  or  calculated  to  weaken  what  he 
had  before  advanced. 

Before  passing,  however,  from  this  Document,  it  seems 
desirable  to  notice  Mr.  Goode's  thrice  repeated  assertion 
(pp.  7,  11,  26),  that  Bishop  Guest*  did  not  Subscribe  the 
Articles  of  1562;  it  makes  no  difference,  indeed,  whether  he 
did  or  not,  to  the  preceding  remarks  upon  that  Prelate's  two 
Letters;  though,  if  it  were  absolutely  certain  that  Guest  did 
sign  in  1562,  those  remarks  would  be  so  far  strengthened 
as  Mr.  Goode's  argument  would  be  weakened,  in  the  disproof 
of  the  allegation  (that  Guest  did  not  then  subscribe)  by 
which  he  endeavours  to  sustain  his  opinion  as  to  the  rejection 
of  Guest's  opinions  in  the  Convocation  of  1571. 

It  must  be  admitted,  indeed,  that  there  are  grounds  for 
doubting  whether  Guest  did  subscribe  before  1571  :  Sennet 
certainly  has  shewn  (Essay  ch.  5)  that  there  are  reasons  for 
thinking  that  Strype  was  mistaken  in  asserting  that  he  "did," 
upon  the  authority  of  "  extracts"  taken  "out  of  the  Regis- 
ters of  Convocation  "  (Ann.  i.  325 — 326)  before  their  destruc- 
tion in  the  Fire  of  London  :  but  it  does  not  seem  to  me  that 
he  has  produced  sufficient  evidence  to  warrant  his  conviction 
that  Guest  (as  well  as  Cheney)  was  "  stedfastly  resolved 

*  In  considering  this  question  of  Guest's  Subscription  it  should  not  be  for- 
gotten that  no  less  a  person  than  Dean  Nowell  did  not  sign  the  copy  of  the 
Articles  subscribed  by  the  Lower  House  of  Convocation  in  1562,  of  which  he  was 
then  Prolocutor  ;  that  copy,  like  the  one  Guest  did  not  sign,  contained  the  29th 
Article.  In  1571,  he  like  Guest,  did  sign;  but  the  printed  copy  of  the  Articles 
attached  to  the  Bodleian  MS.,f  where  his  name  appears,  does  not  contain  the 
29th  Article:  yet  as  there  seernsto  have  been  a  second  subscription  of  the  Lower 
House  to  the  Articles,  as  finally  settled,  including  the  29th,  he  may,  likely 
enough,  have  subscribed  that.  But  this  places  Nowell  and  Guest  in  exactly  the 
same  position :  is  there  any  thing  to  show  that  Archbishop  Parker  and  Nowell 
disagreed  in  the  Real  Presence  ?  I  think  not :  yet,  if  so,  how  would  Mr.  Goode 
account  for  Nowell's  non-subscription  in  1562?  Perhaps,  what  would  explain 
No  well's  course  then,  would  explain  Guest's  also  at  that  time. 

t  Dr.  Lambe  (p.  40)  has  a  curious  note  about  this  Bodleian  MS.  he  says,  "There  is 
one  copy,  of  which  I  ought  to  make  some  mention,  viz.,  that  of  Wolfe's  edition  of  1563, 
with  the  names  of  the  Convocation  of  1571  on  a  sheet  of  parchment  sewed  on  to  its  cover. 
It  is  not  at  all  clear  that  these  names  were  subscribed  to  any  Articles  If  they  were,  they 
must  have  been  attached  to  an  English  copy  in  1571,  from  which  they  have  been  sepa- 
rated and  sewed  to  this  book."  But  there  is  nothing  about  the  book  to  indicate  this;  and 
what  reason  can  be  assigned  for  such  a  surmise  1  It  would  seem  that  Dr.  Lambe  had  not 
taken  into  account  the  second  subscription  mentioned  by  Bennet,  pp.  273  and  315. 


232 

against  it."  There  is  nothing  to  shew,  so  far  at  least  as  I  can 
discover,  that  Guest  changed  his  belief  on  the  Real  Presence 
between  1562  and  1571  ;  on  the  contrary,  the  two  Letters  of 
1566  and  1571,  which  have  been  here  considered,  strongly 
attest  his  persistence  in  it.  It  is  likely  enough,  therefore, 
that  he  had  the  same  objection  to  the  wording  of  Art.  xxix., 
in  1562,  which  he  stated  to  Lord  Burghly  when  it  was  pro- 
posed to  publish  it  in  1571  :  probably  enough,  therefore, 
Guest  did  hesitate  to  sign,  as,  indeed,  the  absence  of  his  sig  - 
nature  from  the  Parker  Latin  MS.  of  January  29,  1562-63 
attests.  It  by  no  means  follows,  however,  that  he  would 
have  refused  to  sign,  had  it  been  then  determined  to  promul- 
gate that  Article  with  the  rest :  but  the  fact  that  it  was 
allowed  to  remain  dormant  among  the  Convocation  Records ; 
that  it  did  not  appear  in  the  Latin  MS.  (State  Papers,  Dom. 
Eliz.,  Vol.  xxvii.  41  a)  apparently  sent  to  the  Secretary 
Cecil  ;  and  that,  as  the  English  contemporary  MS.  states  of 
it,  "  this  in  \e  orynal  book  not  prynted  "  (Ibid.  40,  January 
31,  1563)  would  furnish  adequate  reasons  for  Guest  con- 
tinuing to  decline  Subscription,  indeed  for  his  having  no 
occasion  to  further  consider  the  subject  until  it  was  re-opened 
by  the  proposal  to  publish  this  Article  with  the  rest  in  1571. 
Though,  however,  these  considerations  would  obviate  any 
necessity  for  his  Subscription  in  1 563,  they  do  not  prove,  nor 
does  it  by  any  means  follow,  that  he  did  not  subscribe  :  it  is 
not  improbable  that,  as  has  been  suggested,  he  may  have  done 
so  in  some  subsequent  Session :  but  perhaps  the  Original 
Records  themselves  would  not  have  determined  the  point  any 
more  than  the  Extracts  which  have  been  preserved ;  for  it 
does  not  follow  that  any  notice  of  additional  Subscriptions 
would  have  been  entered  in  the  Convocation  Register  :  if  the 
Parker  MS.  had  remained  with  the  Convocation  Records,  in- 
stead of  being  taken,  apparently,  to  Lambeth  by  the  Arch- 
bishop, it  would  in  all  likelihood  have  shared  their  fate ;  in 
that  case  what  evidence  would  there  have  been  as  to  who  sub- 
scribed or  who  did  not  ?  Possibly,  then,  Guest  (it  might 
also  be  true  of  Cheney)  subscribed  some  other  copy  of  the 
Articles  which  was  destroyed  with  the  Records  themselves. 


233 

For  the  reasons  above  stated,  however,  I  need  not  pursue  the 
inquiry  further;  indeed  it  would  seem  nearly  profitless  to  do 
so  in  the  absence  of  other  Documents  than  those  known  to 
exist :  in  fact,  it  does  almost  appear  that  the  point  could  only 
be  finally  settled  by  the  discovery  of  another  copy  of  the 
Parker  MS.,  with  the  Signatures  lacking  in  that  original.  I 
close  these  observations  therefore  with  the  following  remarks, 
which  shew  Mr.  Hardwick's  latest  (published)  opinions  on 
the  subject: — 

11  But  formidable  doubts  have  been  excited  as  to  the  supreme 
authority  of  the  Parker  Manuscript,  by  collating  portions  of  it  with 
an  extract  taken  from  the  actual  Register  of  Convocation  in  the  time 
of  Archbishop  Laud,  and  formally  attested  by  a  public  notary  to 
satisfy  or  silence  his  accusers.  Besides  exhibiting  a  different 
version  of  one  Article  *  On  the  authority  of  the  Church,'  ....  the 
extract  from  the  Convocation-records  has  preserved  a  catalogue  of 
the  assentient  prelates,  varying  in  some  noticeable  points  from  that 
surviving  in  the  Parker  Manuscript  :*  and  fresh  perplexity  is  added  to 

*  ''This  MS.  contains  the  subscriptions  of  the  Archbishop  of  Canterbury, 
and  the  Bishops  of  London,  Winchester,  Chichester,  Ely,  Worcester,  Hereford, 
Bangor,  Lincoln,  Salisbury,  St.  David's,  Bath  and  Wells,  Coventry  and  Lich- 
field,  Exeter,  Norwich,  Peterborough,  and  St.  Asaph,— besides  the  three  above- 
mentioned  [Young  of  York,  Pilkington  of  Durham,  Downham  of  Chester]  who 
belonged  to  the  other  province.  Tbe  copy  of  the  Record  produced  by  Arch- 
bishop  Laud  omits  the  three  northern  prelates,  as  well  as  those  of  Chichester, 
Worcester,  and  Peterborough.  It,  however,  includes  the  name  of  Guest,  Bishop 
of  Rochester,  although  some  persons  bave  doubted  whether  he  subscribed  or  not 
(Bennet,  p.  184), — a  suspicion  which  is  somewhat  strengthened,  so  far  as 
Parker's  draft  is  concerned,  by  what  is  known  of  Guest's  opinions  on  the 
Eucharist.  But  when  the  3rd  'clause  in  the  Art.  '  De  Ccena  Domini '  ['  Foras- 
muche  as  the  trueth  of  mannes  nature  requireth,'  etc.,  see  p.  32]  appearing  to 
favour  Zwinglian  views  as  to  the  nature  of  the  Presence,  was  struck  out  by  the 
Convocation,  Guest  might  be  entirely  satisfied,  and  so  might  subscribe ; — which 
strongly  favours  the  conclusion  that  tbe  extract  produced  at  Laud's  trial  was 
taken  from  a  later  and  more  authoritative  document.  On  the  other  hand, 
Cheynie,  Bishop  of  Gloucester,  though  occasionally  present  at  meetings  of  the 
Synod,  never  acquiesced  in  some  of  the  decisions,  which,  explains  the  omission 
of  his  name  in  all  the  lists,  (Strype,  Annals,  I.  563).  The  Bishopric  of  Oxford 
was  not  full ;  and  Kitchen  of  Llandaff  (apparently  from  want  of  sympathy)  took 
no  part  in  the  proceedings." 

This  fact  of  the  withdrawal  of  tbe  Clause  of  Art.  29  here  referred  to  by  Mr. 
Hardwick,  tends  to  sbew  (if  his  argument  about  Guest  is  well-founded,  as  it 
would  seem  to  be)  that  there  was  not  that  great  discrepancy  between  the 
opinions  of  Archbishop  Parker  and  Bishop  Guest,  which  Mr.  Goode  maintains  to 
bave  existed,  and  which  I  have  ventured  to  doubt.  It  confirms,  too,  I  think 
what  I  have  all  throughout  this  Letter  contended  for— that  "  real  and  essential" 
in  tbe  Declaration  si  1552,  "reall  and  bodelie"  [Realein  et  Corporalem]  in  the 
Article  of  1552,  meant  no  more  than  carnal  and  physical — else  how  could  Arch- 
bishop Parker  have  consented  to  abandon  so  important  a  clause  as  this,  which  he 
had  inserted  in  his  draft  of  the  Article  of  1562,  as  copied  from  that  of  1552  ? 

H    H 


234 

this  question  by  the  circumstance  that  both  the  series  of  episcopal 
signatures  are  said  to  have  been  appended  to  the  Articles  on  the 
same  day,  and  in  the  same  place. 

"  If  one  may  safely  hazard  a  conjecture  in  the  midst  of  these 
clashing  statements,  it  is  possible  that  after  the  House  of  Bishops 
had  subscribed  the  Primate's  copy  on  the  29th  of  January,  it  was 
transmitted  to  the  northern  Convocation,  without  waiting  for  the 
criticism  of  the  lower  house,  who  had  continued  their  discussions  for 
another  week  ;  and  that  on  its  return  it  was  deposited,  like  other 
private  papers,  with  the  Parker  Manuscripts,  where  it  is  now  sur- 
viving ;  while  the  copy  of  the  Articles  as  left  when  finally  authorized 
by  the  whole  Synod  on  the  fifth  of  the  following  month  had  found  its 
natural  place  among  the  other  records  of  Convocation,  viz.,  in  the 
registry  belonging  to  the  See  of  Canterbury,  at  St,  Paul's  Cathedral." 
— Hist,  of  Art.,  p.  135.  2nd  Ed. 

For  if  the  language  was  intentionally  Zwinglian,  and  Parker  knew  it  so  to  be, 
then  he  must  have  been  a  Zwinglian  in  re-producing  it :  but  no  one,  that  I  am 
aware,  has  ever  accused  him  of  holding  this  view  of  the  Eucharistic  Presence  : 
it  follows,  therefore,  that  in  proposing  to  re-impose  that  part  of  Article  28  of 
1552,  which  denied  "  the  real!  and  bodilie  presence  (as  thei  terme  it)  of  Christ's 
fiesh  and  blood,"  he  knew  full  well  he  was  only  excluding  a  carnal  presence.  It 
is,  however,  quite  consistent  with  this  to  suppose  that  the  Archbishop  consented 
to  abandon  the  paragraph  because  the  language  might  be  (and  was  by  some) 
misunderstood  to  favour  Zwinglian  doctrine. 

That  some  were  dissatisfied  with  the  change  is  plain  from  the  Letter  of 
Humphrey  and  Sampson  to  Bullinger,  in  July,  1566,  where,  speaking  of  "some 
blemishes  which  still  attach  to  the  Church  of  England"  they  say,  "  13.  Lastly, 
the  Article  composed  in  the  time  of  Edward  the  Sixth  respecting  the  spiritual 
eating,  which  expressly  oppugned  and  took  away  the  real  [realem]  presence  in 
the  Eucharist,  and  contained  a  most  clear  explanation  of  the  truth,  is  now  set 
forth  among  us  mutilated  and  imperfect." — Zurich  Letters,  I.,  p.  165. 

After  all,  however,  was  this  the  reason  for  the  alteration  in  the  Article  ?  Is  it 
not  much  more  likely  that  the  paragraph  was  omitted  because  the  Declaration, 
which  corresponded  with  it,  had  already  been. omitted  in  Elizabeth's  Prayer 
Book  ?  This  seems  to  me  to  be  the  true  explanation  of  the  change ;  for  though, 
as  I  have  noticed  at  p.  191,  the  Declaration  seems  to  have  been  in  some  way 
used ;  yet  the  omission  of  its  language  from  the  Prayer  Book  and  the  Article 
implied  an  intention  not  to  constrain  opinions  too  much  on  this  point,  by  any 
publicly  imposed  formulary.  The  following  extract  from  a  Letter  of  Archbishop 
Parker  to  Sir  William  Cecil,  on  Feb.  6,  1570-71,  will  serve  to  shew  what 
opinions  the  Archbishop  did  not  hold,  and  also  that  there  was  a  considerable  una- 
nimity of  belief  upon  the  Eucharistic  question  only  two  mouths  prior  to  the 
opening  of  the  Convocation,  on  April  3rd. —  "Sir,  As  you  desired,  I  send  you 
here  the  form  of  the  bread  used,  and  was  so  appointed  by  order  of  my  late  Lord 
of  London*  and  myself,  as  we  took  it  not  disagreeable  to  the  injunction.  And 
how  so  many  churches  hath  of  late  varied  I  cannot  tell ;  except  it  be  the  prac- 
tice of  the  common  adversary  the  devil,  to  make  variance  and  dissension  in  the 
Sacrament  of  unity.  For  where  we  be  in  one  uniform  doctrine  of  the  same,  and 

*  The  allusion  is  to  Grindal,  who,  acting  with  Parker  upon  the  Queen's  Injunction, 
and  the  26th  Section  of  Elizabeth's  Act  of  Uniformity  (which  gave  power  to  the  Queen  by 
advice  of  the  !•  cclesiastioal  Commissioners  or  Metropolitan  "  to  publish  such  further  cere- 
monies "  as  tended  to  "the  due  reverence  of  Christ's  holy  Mysteries  and  Sacraments")  had 
advised  tlie  substitution  of  Wafer  Bread  for  Common  Bread.  The  instance  is  not  favourable 
to  those  who  now  propose  to  revive  this  power  to  suppress  or  control  Ceremonial  or  Ritual 
developments. 


235 

These  Records  it  must  be  recollected,  perished  in  the  great 
fire  of  London  ;  and  therefore  Mr.  Goode  is  not  quite  war- 
ranted in  saying  so  positively  (p.  26),  in  contradiction  of  Dr. 
Pusey's  statement  gathered  from  Strype,  that  "  Neither 
[Cheney  nor  Geste]  signed  those  Articles  [of  1562],  and  the 
Articles  of  1571  were  never  signed  by  Cheney.  This  is  an 
important  fact  in  relation  to  our  present  subject." 

At  p.  66  I  suggested  that  it  might  be  useful  to  examine 
the  language  of  Bishop  Jewel,  as  being  a  leading  Elizabethan 
Prelate,  to  ascertain  whether  his  arguments  touching  the 
Real  Presence  were  not,  like  those  of  the  Edwardine  Divines, 
directed  chiefly  against  the  prevalent  popular  belief  of  a  car- 
nal, physical  presence :  this  I  proceed  now  to  do,  especially 
as  Guest's  reference,  in  both  Letters,  to  his  contemporary, 
makes  it  all  the  more  important  to  learn  what  he  held  on  the 
Doctrine  for  which  Guest  quotes  him ;  the  controversy  with 
Harding  furnishes  numerous  passages  to  support  this  opinion  : 
Jewel,  in  his  "Sermon  at  Paul's  Cross,"  1560,  had  challenged 
the  Roman  party  to  "  bring  any  one  sufficient  sentence  out 
of  any  old  Catholic  doctor,  or  father,  or  out  of  any  old 
general  council,  or  out  of  the  holy  scriptures  of  God,  or 
any  one  example  of  the  primitive  Church.  .  .  .  For  the 
space  of  six  hundred  years  after  Christ,"  to  prove  the  truth  of 
twenty-five  several  Doctrines  or  Practices  which  they  used  or 
held.  Harding  took  up  the  challenge  in  1563;  and  Jewel 
replied  in  1565:  the  following  are  a  few  out  of  many  pas- 
sages which  might  be  cited  as  shewing  the  language  which 
runs  throughout  the  disputation. 

One  proposition  which  Jewel  denied  to  be  proveable  from 
the  first  six  centuries  was  : — 
"  that  the  people  was  then  taught  to  believe  that  Christ's  body  is 

so  cut  off  much  matter  of  variance  which  the  Lutherans  and  Zwinglians  do  hate- 
fully maintain,  yet  because  we  will  have  some  matter  of  dissension,  we  will 
quarrel  in  a  small  circumstance  of  the  same,  neither  regarding  God  in  His  Word, 
who  earnestly  driveth  us  to  charity,  neither  regarding  the  love  and  subjection 
we  should  have  to  our  prince,  who  zealously  would  wish  the  devout  administra- 
tion of  the  Sacrament,  nor  yet  consider  what  comfort  we  might  receive  ourselves 
in  the  said  Sacrament,  if  dissensions  were  not  so  great  with  us."  —Parker  Cor- 
respondence, No.  286. 


236 
really,  substantially,  corporally,  carnally,  or  naturally  in  the 

Sacrament." 

Harding  began  his  proof  by  saying  that : — 

"  Christian  people  hath  ever  been  taught  that  the  body  and  blood  of 

Jesus  Christ,  ....  is  present  in  this  most  holy  Sacrament,  and  that 

verily  and  indeed." 

And  he  adds  : — 

*'....  that  the  words  of  institution  of  this  Sacrament  admit 
no  other  understanding,  but  that  he  giveth  unto  us  in  these  holy 
mysteries  his  self-same  body  and  his  self-same  blood  in  truth  of 
Substance,  which  was  crucified  and  shed  forth  for  us." — Of  Real 
Presence;  Works,  Parker  Society,  Vol.  1,  p.  44-5. 

Jewel  (though  indeed  he  seems  here  somewhat  to  overlay 
Harding's  language  by  his  own  interpretation  of  it)  says  in 
reply  : — 

"  The  question  is  here  moved,  *  whether  Christ's  body  be  really 
and  corporally  in  the  Sacrament.'  His  answer  is,  that  Christ's 
body  is  joined  and  united  really  and  corporally  unto  us*" 

Then  he  proceeds  to  argue  thus : — 

"And,  albeit  M.  Harding  lay  such  hold  upon  these  words  of 
Christ,  as  if  they  were  so  plain,  yet  others  of  his  friends,  by  their 
diverse  and  sundry  constructions  touching  the  same,  have  made  them 
somewhat  dark  and  doubtful,  and  cannot  yet  throughly  agree  upon 
them.  Some  of  them  say,  '  Christ's  natural  body  is  in  the  Sacra- 
ment, howbeit  not  naturally;'  some  others  say,  'It  is  there  both 
naturally,  and  also  sensibly?'  some  of  them  say  precisely,  '  Never 
man  used  either  of  these  two  terms,  naturally  or  sensibly,  in  this 
case  of  Christ's  presence  in  the  Sacrament.'  Yet  others  of  them  put 
the  matter  out  of  doubt,  and  say,  *  Christ  is  there  present  naturally.' 
And  in  the  council  holden  in  Rome  under  Pope  Nicolas  the  Second, 
it  was  determined,  and  Berengarius  forced  to  subscribe,  that  Christ 
is  in  the  Sacrament  sensibly  ;  or  as  they  then  grossly  uttered  it  in 
Latin,  sensualiter.  Some  of  them  say,  '  Christ's  body  is  not  divided 
or  broken  in  the  Sacrament,  but  only  the  accidents.'  But  Pope 
Nicolas  with  his  whole  council  saith,  '  Christ's  body  itself  is  touched 
with  fingers,  and  divided,  and  broken,  and  rent  with  teeth,  and  not 
only  the  accidents.'  .  .  . 

"  Now,  if  this  article  cannot  be  proved,  neither  by  any  words  of 
the  Scriptures,  as  Doctor  Fisher  saith r  and  as  it  further  appeareth  by 
the  dissension  of  the  teachers,  nor  by  any  one  of  all  the  old  doctors 
and  fathers,  as  M.  Harding  granteth  by  his  silence,  then  may  godly 
and  catholic  Christian  people  well  stay  their  judgments,  and  stand 


237 

in  doubt  of  this  carnal  and  fleshly  presence.  Indeed  the  question 
between  us  this  day  is  not  of  the  letters  or  syllables  of  Christ's 
words,  for  they  are  known  and  confessed,  of  either  party  ;  but  only 
of  the  sense  and  meaning  of  his  words,  which,  as  St.  Hierome 
saith,  is  the  very  pith  and  substance  of  the  Scriptures.  ...  If  it 
be  true  that  M.  Harding  saith,  that  this  is  the  only  sense  and 
meaning  of  Christ's  words,  that  his  body  is  in  such  grOSS  sort 
really  and  fleshly  in  the  Sacrament,  and  that,  unless  Christ  mean 
so,  .he  meaneth  nothing ;  it  is  great  wonder  that  none  of  the  an- 
cient catholic  doctors  of  the  Church,  no,  not  one,  could  ever  see  it ; 
or,  if  they  saw  it,  yet,  being  so  eloquent,  lacked  words,  and  were 
never  able  to  express  it. — Ibid.  pp.  446-7. 

"And  whereas  M.  Harding  thus  unjustly  reporteth  of  us,  that  we 
maintain  a  naked  figure  and  a  bare  sign  or  token  only,  and  nothing 
else  ;  ...  he  knoweth  well  that  we  feed  not  the  people  of  God 
with  bare  signs  and  figures,  but  teach  them  that  the  Sacraments  of 
Christ  be  holy  mysteries,  and  that  in  the  ministration  thereof  Christ 
is  set  before  us  even  as  he  was  crucified  upon  the  cross  ;  and  that 
therein  we  may  behold  the  remission  of  our  sins,  and  our  reconcilia- 
tion unto  God;  and  as  Chrysostom  briefly  saith, '  Christ's  great  benefit 
and  our  salvation.'  Herein  we  teach  the  people,  not  that  a  naked 
sign  or  token,  but  Christ's  body  and  blood  indeed  and  verily  is 
given  unto  us  ;  that  we  verily  eat  it ;  that  we  verily  drink  it ;  that 
we  verily  be  relieved  and  live  by  it ;  that  we  are  bone  of  his 
bones,  and  flesh  of  his  flesh  ;  that  Christ  dwelleth  in  us  and  we  in 
Him.  Yet  we  say  not  either  that  the  substance  of  the  bread  or 
wine  is  done  away  ;  or  that  Christ's  body  is  let  down  from  heaven, 
or  made  really  or  fleshly  present  in  the  Sacrament 

"To  conclude,  three  things  herein  we  must  consider:  first,  that 
we  put  a  difference  between  the  sign  and  the  thing  itself  that  is 
signified. 

"  Secondly,  that  we  seek  Christ  above  in  heaven,  and  imagine  not 
him  to  be  present  bodily  upon  the  earth. 

"  Thirdly,  that  the  body  of  Christ  is  to  be  eaten  by  faith  only, 
and  none  otherwise. 

"  Now  consider  then,  good  Christian  reader,  with  thyself,  whether 
it  be  better  to  use  this  word  '  figure,'  which  word  hath  been  often 
used  of  Tertullian,  St.  Augustine,  and  of  all  the  rest  of  the  ancient 
fathers,  without  controlment ;  or  else  these  new-fangled  words, 
'really,'  'corporally,'  'carnally,'  etc.,  which  words  Mr  Harding  is 
not  able  to  shew  that,  in  this  case  of  being  really  in  the  Sacrament, 
any  one  of  all  the  old  fathers  ever  used." — Ibid.  pp.  448-9. 

Harding  continued  thus  : — 

"Again,  we  cannot  find  where  our  Lord  performed  the  promise 
he  had  made  in  the  sixth  chapter  of  John,  '  The  bread  which  I 
will  give  is  my  flesh,  which  I  will  give  for  the  life  of  the  world,' 


238 

but  only  in  his  last  Supper :  where  if  he  gave  his  flesh  to  his 
Apostles,  and  that  none  other  but  the  very  same  which  he  gave  for 
the  lite  of  the  world,  it  followeth  that  in  the  blessed  Sacrament  is 
not  mere  bread,  but  that  same  his  very  body  in  substance.  For  it 
was  not  mere  bread,  but  his  very  body,  that  was  given  and  offered 
up  upon  the  cross." 

To  which  Jewel  replies : — 

"  This  principle  is  not  only  false  in  itself,  but  also  full  of  dan- 
gerous doctrine,  and  may  soon  lead  to  desperation.  For  if  no  man 
may  eat  the  flesh  of  Christ,  but  only  in  the  Sacrament,  as  here  by 
M.  Harding  it  is  supposed,  then  all  Christian  children,  and  all  others 
whosoever  depart  this  life  without  receiving  the  Sacrament,  must 
needs  be  damned,  and  die  the  children  of  God's  anger.  For  Christ's 
words  be  plain  and  general  :  *  Unless  ye  eat  the  flesh  of  the  Son  of 
man,  ye  shall  have  no  life  in  you.'  ....  But  our  doctrine,  grounded 
upon  God's  holy  word,  is  this,  that  as  certainly  as  Christ  gave  His 
body  upon  the  Cross,  so  certainly  He  giveth  now  the  self-same  body 
unto  the  faithful ;  and  that,  not  only  in  the  ministration  of  the 
Sacrament,  ....  And  therefore  St.  Augustine  saith,  (De.  Civ.  Dei. 
Lib.  xxi.  c.  xx.)  *  They  eat  Christ's  body,  not  only  in  the  Sacra- 
ment, but  also  in  very  deed/  Here  St.  Augustine  saith,  contrary 
to  M.  Harding's  doctrine,  that  we  eat  Christ's  body,  not  only  in  the 
Sacrament,  but  also  otherwise;  yea,  and  so  far  he  forceth  this 
difference,  THAT  HE  MAKETH  THE  EATING  OF  CHRIST'S  BODY  IN 

THE  SACRAMENT  TO  BE  ONE  THING,  AND  THE  VERY  TRUE  EATING 
THEREOF  INDEED  TO  BE  ANOTHER  THING.*  ....  To  be  short,  of 

Christian  children,  and  other  faithful  that  never  received  the  Sacra- 
ment, he  writeth  thus  (in  Serm.  ad  Inf,  Citat.  a  Beda  1  Cor.  x.), 
*  No  man  may  in  any  wise  doubt,  but  that  every  faithful  man  is  then 
made  partaker  of  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ,  when  in  baptism  he 
is  made  a  member  of  Christ :  and  that  he  is  not  without  the  fellow- 
ship of  that  bread  and  cup,  although  before  he  eat  of  that  bread, 
and  drink  of  that  cup,  he  depart  this  world,  being  in  the  unity  of 
Christ's  body.  For  he  is  not  made  frustrate  of  the  Communion 
.and  benefit  of  that  Sacrament,  while  he  findeth  that  thing  which  is 
signified  by  the  Sacrament.'  " — Ibid.  pp.  449-50. 

Again,  Harding  had  said: — 

"  If  the  words  spoken  by  Christ  in  St.  John  of  promise,  that  he 
performed  <in  his  holy  Supper,  *  The  bread  that  I  will  give  is  My 
flesh,'  had  been  to  be  taken,  not  as  they  seem  to  mean,  plainly  and 
truly,  but  metaphorically,  tropically,  symbolically,  and  figuratively, 
so  as  the  truth  of  our  Lord's  flesh  be  excluded,  as  our  adversaries 

*  The  words  which  I  have  printed  in  Capitals  are  very  observable  as  shewing 
Jewel's  opinion  of  the  language  of  St.  Augustine,  and  may  fairly  be  appealed  to 
in  support  of  Guest's  language,  touching  reception  by  the  wicked,  in  his  Letter, 
§  11,  p.  200. 


do  understand  them,  then  the  Capernaites  had  not  any  occasion  at 
all  of  their  great  offence." — Ibid.  p.  450. 

To  this  Jewel,  quoting  St.  Augustine,  St.  Basil,  Origen, 
Tertullian,  and  St.  Chrysostom,  replies :  — 

"  Hereby  it  is  plain  that  Christ's  meaning  is  spiritual,  as  Christ 
Himself  and  all  the  old  fathers  and  doctors  of  the  Church  have  ex- 
pounded it;  not  real,  Carnal,  gTOSS,  and  fleshly,  as  M.  Harding 
imagineth.  M.  Harding  will  say,  that  the  eating  with  the  mouth 
and  the  grinding  with  the  teeth  is  a  work  spiritual.  By  this  sense 
he  is  a  good  proctor  for  the  Capernaites,  and  must  needs  say,  that 
they  had  a  spiritual  understanding 

"  Now  let  us  see  what  sense  the  Capernaites  gathered  hereof. 
Origen  saith,  .  .  .  .  *  It  happeneth  sometime  that  simple  men,  being 
notable  to  put  difference  between  those  things  in  the  Scriptures  that 
pertain  to  the  inner  man,  and  those  that  pertain  to  the  outer  man, 
are  deceived  by  the  likeness  of  words,  and  so  fall  into  foolish  fables 
and  vain  fantasies.'  So  saith  St.  Hierome,  ....  Whereas  they  are 
taken  for  the  elders  in  the  Church,  and  the  chief  of  the  priests,  by 
following  the  plain  letter,  they  kill  the  Son  of  God.'  Even  thus  it 
happened  unto  the  Capernaites :  that  Christ  spake  spiritually  of- 
eating  with  faith,  they  understood  gTOSSly  of  eating  with  the  teeth ; 
as  though  they  should  swallow  down  His  flesh  into  their  bodies,  as 
other  meats ;  even  in  such  gross  sort  as  M.  Harding  would  now 
teach  the  people  to  eat  Christ's  body." — Ibid.  p.  452. 

The  better  to  sustain  his  position  Harding  said  tjius : — 

"  ....  if  Christ  would  have  been  so  understanded,  as  though  He 
had  meant  to  give  but  a  figure  only  of  his  body,  it  had  been  no 
need  for  him  to  have  alleged  his  omnipotency  and  almighty  power 
to  his  disciples,  thereby  the  rather  to  bring  them  to  belief  of  his 

true  body  to  be  given  them  to  eat '  Doth  this  offend  you  ?' 

saith  he " 

Upon  which  Jewel  remarks  : — 

"  And  again,  would  M.  Harding  make  all  the  world  believe,  if 
Christ's  body  be  not  f  leslily  and  grossly  in  the  Sacrament,  according 
to  his  fantasy,  that  then  God  therefore  is  not  omnipotent  ?  Verily  the 
old  catholic  fathers  acknowledge  God's  omnipotency  in  the  water  of 
baptism  ;  yet  is  not  Christ  therefore  really  present  in  the  water." — 
Ibid.  pp.  453-4. 

Then  instancing  SS.  Chrysostom,  Augustine,  and  Leo, 
he  concludes  :  — 

"  It  appeareth  by  these  authorities,  that  Christ  in  the  water  of 
baptism  sheweth  his  invisible  and  omnipotent  power.  Yet  will  not 
M.  Harding  say  that  Christ  is  therefore  really  and  fleshly  present 
in  the  water  of  baptism. 


240 

"  Therefore  it  was  but  vain  labour  to  allege  Christ's  omnipotent 
power  to  prove  this  fleshly  presence  in  the  sacrament," — Ibid. 
p.  455. 

Further,  Harding  stated  : — 

"  These  places  of  the  scripture,  and  many  other  reporting  plainly 
that  Christ  at  his  supper  gave  to  his  disciples  his  very  body,  even 
that  same  which  the  day  following  suffered  death  on  the  cross,  have 
ministered  just  cause  to  the  godly  and  learned  fathers  of  the  Church 
to  say,  that  Christ's  body  is  present  in  the  sacrament  really,  Sub- 
stantially, corporally,  carnally,  and  naturally.  By  use  of  which 
adverbs  they  have  meant  only  a  truthtof  being,  and  not  a  way  or  mean 
of  being.  And  though  this  manner  of  speaking  be  not  thus  expressed 
in  the  scripture,  yet  it  is  deduced  out  of  the  scripture.  For  if 
Christ  spake  plainly,  and  used  no  trope,  figure,  nor  metaphor,  as  the 
scripture  itself  sufficiently  declareth  to  an  humble  believer,  and 
would  his  disciples  to  understand  him,  so  as  he  spake  in  manifest 
terms  when  he  said,  '  This  is  my  body  which  is  given  for  you  ;'  then 
may  we  say,  that  in  the  sacrament  his  very  body  is  present,  yea, 
really,  that  is  to  say,  indeed,  substantially,  that  is  in  substance, 

and  corporally,  carnally,  and  naturally;   by  which  words  is 

meant  that  his  very  body,  his  very  flesh,  and  his  very  human  nature, 
is  there,  not  after  corporal,  carnal,  or  natural  wise,  but  invisibly, 
unspeakably,  miraculously,  supernaturally,  spiritually,  divinely,  and 
by  way  to  him  only  known." — Ibid.  p.  455. 

Mr.  Go^ode  (p.  12)  endeavours  to  depreciate  the  value  of 
Guest's  reference  (in  his  Letter  of  22nd  Dec.  1566)  to  these 
words  of  Harding;  he  says: — 

"  Mow  different  were  the  views  of  Bishop  Geste  on  this  point 
from  those  of  Bishop  Jewel,  may  be  seen  by  comparing  the  way  in 
which  the  former  notices  the  passage  he  has  quoted  from  Harding, 
and  the  remark  of  the  latter  on  the  same  passage.  Bishop  Geste,  as 
we  have  seen,  quotes  it  as  conformable  to  his  own  doctrine.  But 
this  very  same  passage  is  treated  by  Bishop  Jewel  i  n  the  following 
way." 

Then  Mr.  Goode  proceeds  to  quote  Bishop  Jewel's 
answer,  which  (except  the  part  in  brackets)  I  had  also 
selected,  as  illustrative  of  the  position  for  which  these  ex- 
tracts were  made  : — 

["  M.  Harding  saith  these  words,  '  This  is  my  body,'  must  needs 
be  taken  without  metaphor,  trope,  or  figure,  even  as  the  plain  letter 
lieth,  and  none  otherwise.  So  saith  M.  Harding  only  upon  his  own 
credit.  But  the  old  catholic  doctors  of  the  Church,  of  whom,  he 
saith,  he  hath  such  store,  say  not  so.  St.  Augustine,  St.  Ambrose, 
St.  H Jerome,  St.  Chrysostom,  St.  Basil,  Tertullian,  and  others  call 


241 

the  Sacrament  a  figure,  a  token,  a  sign,  an  example,  an  image,  a 

similitude,  a  remembrance ;] Upon  these  grounds  of  his 

own  M.  Harding  reareth  up  this  conclusion :  '  Thus,'  saith  he, 
'  may  we  say,  that  Christ  is  in  the  Sacrament  really,'  etc.  Indeed, 
a  man  may  say  much,  that  hath  no  regard  what  he  say.  But  if  he 
will  say,  as  the  old  godly  Fathers  said,  then  must  he  say:  Hoc  est 
corpus  meum,  hoc  estfigura  corporis  mei:  This  is  my  body,  that  is  to 
say  a  figure  of  my  body.  For  so  the  old  learned  Father  Tertullian  saith, 
Then  must  he  say  .  .  .  .  '  Christ  delivered  unto  his  disciples  a  figure 
of  his  body.'  For  so  the  old  learned  father  St.  Augustine  saith. 
Then  must  he  say :  .  .  .  .  -  l  The  sacrament  of  Christ's  body  after  a 
certain  phrase  or  manner,  or  trope,  or  figure  of  speech,  is  the  body  of 
Christ.'  For  so  again  St.  Augustine  saith. 

**  Here  M.  Harding,  seeing  the  inconveniences  and  absurdities  of 
his  doctrine,  thought  good  to  heal  it  up  with  some  plaister.  By 
these  words,  really,  carnally,  etc.,  '  the  godly  learned  fathers,'  saith 
he,  *  meant  that  Christ's  very  body  and  flesh  is  there,  but  not  in  any 
natural  or  carnal  wise.*  And  thus  M.  Harding's  doctors  wrote  one 
thing  and  meant  another.  For  M.  Harding  knoweth  that  all 
adverbs,  taken  of  nouns,  signify  evermore  a  quality,  and  never  the 
substance  ;  which  thing  children  are  taught  to  know  in  the  grammar 
school ;  and  may  be  resolved  thus :  Viriliter,  virili  modo :  mulie- 
briter,  muliebri  modo 

"But  what  are  these  old  learned  fathers,  that  say  Christ's  body  is 
really  and  fleshly  in  the  Sacrament?  Where  be  their  words? 
What  be  their  names  ?  If  they  have  neither  names  nor  words,  how 
can  they  be  allowed  for  sufficient  witnesses..  M.  Harding  well 
knoweth  that  the  old  learned  fathers  never  said  so^  yet  must  he 
needs  imagine  both  causes  that  moved  them  so  to  say,  and  also  ex- 
positions, what  they  meant  by  so  saying.  .  »  .  .  " — Ibid  pp.  456-7. 

But  what  is  there  in  this  language  of  Bishop  Jewel  which, 
as  Mr.  Goode  says,  makes  his  views  "  different"  from  "the 
views  of  Bishop  Geste  ? "  Guest,  stating  his  disagreement 
with  Cheney,  says  that  "  ye  DOCTORS  doo  write  "  the  expres- 
sions "  corporally  naturally  reallye,  substantially  and  car- 
nally:" he  does  not  say,  as  Harding  asserted  and  Jewel 
denied,  that  "  the  godly  and  learned  FATHERS  of  the 
Church"  wrote  thus:  he  neither  quotes  Har ding's  reference 
to  these  Fathers,  nor  gives  the  remotest  hint  that  he  con- 
sidered such  reference  accurate  ;  in  fact,  he  does  not  use,  or 
even  allude  to,  this  portion  of  Harding's  argument  at  all: 
what  he  does  is  merely  to  use,  as  against  Cheney,  an  expia- 
tion to  which  Harding  himself  was  -compelled  to  have 
recourse  when  claiming  a  Patristic  authority  for  the  terms  in 

i  i 


242 

question.  Guest  argues  that  "  though  ....  Christ's  Bodye  >' 
were  "  receaved  ....  corporally  naturally  reallye  substan- 
tially and  carnally  as  ye  doctors  do  write,  yet  he  did  not 
for  all  that  see  it,  feale  it,  smell  it,  nor  taste  it"  in  any 
PHYSICAL  manner :  and  he  fortifies  his  position  not  only  by 
claiming  for  it  the  sanction  of  "all  sortes  of  men,"  but 
especially  by  citing  an  important  admission  of  the  leading 
Roman  controversialist  of  that  day,  who,  as  Jewel  says  of  his 
doctrine,  "  thought  good  to  heal  it  up  with  some  plaister," 
by  saying  that  Christ's  "verye  humane  nature  is  there  [in  the 
Sacrament]  not  after  corporall  carnall  or  naturall  wise,  but 
invisibly  unspeakably  supernaturally  spiritually  divinely  and 
by  way  unto  Him  on  lye  knowen."  Guest,  quoting  as  he  did 
from  "Jewel's  controversy  with  M.  Harding,  of  real  Pre- 
sence/' could  not  be  ignorant  of  this  reply  of  the  Bishop  of 
Salisbury  to  which  Mr.  Goode  refers  us :  nor  can  it  be 
reasonably  supposed  that  he  would  carelessly,  much  less 
wilfully,  misrepresent  Jewel  as  coinciding  with  him  on  a  point 
upon  which  both  their  opinions  were  sufficiently  well  known, 
and  therefore  easily  capable  of  comparison  by  the  important 
personage  to  whom  he  wrote.  Moreover,  Guest  was  surely 
in  a  somewhat  better  position  than  we  can  be  to  understand 
the  published  language  of  his  living  contemporary ;  and 
therefore  he  may  well  enough  have  been  persuaded  of  what 
seems  to  me  to  be  true — that  when  Jewel  says  "  thus  M. 
Harding's  doctors  wrote  one  thing,  and  meant  another,"  his 
objection  was  not  to  the  words  "  corporally,  carnally,"  etc., 
but  to  that  popular  perversion  of  them  which  was  still  very 
current,  and  which  was  fostered  in  the  use  made  of  them  by 
such  a  writer  as  Harding.  I  will  only  further  express  my 
conviction — that  it  requires  no  very  careful  comparison  of 
Jewel's  Eucharistic  statements  with  Guest's  Treatise  on  the 
"Prevee  Masse,"  already  quoted,  to  shew  the  coincidence  of 
their  judgment,  and  to  prove  the  improbability  of  that  dif- 
ference of  opinion  on  the  Real  Presence  which  Mr.  Goode 
ascribes  to  them. 

Harding,  however,  proceeds  to  specify   authorities ;    and 


243 

having  quoted  from  St.  Chrysostom,  St.  Hilary,  Gregory 
Nyssen,  and  St.  Cyril,  he  sums  up  thus:  — 

"  Now  this  being  and  remaining  of  Christ  in  us,  and  of  us  in 
Christ  naturally  and  carnally,  and  this  uniting  of  us  and  Christ 
together  corporally,  presupposeth  a  participation  of  his  very  body, 
which  body  we  cannot  truly  participate  but  in  this  blessed  sacra- 
ment. And  therefore  Christ  is  in  the  Sacrament  naturally,  Car- 
nally, corporally,  that  is  to  say,  according  to  the  truth  of  his 
nature,  of  his  flesh,  and  of  his  body.  For  were  he  not  so  in  the 
Sacrament,  we  could  not  be  joined  unto  him,  nor  he  and  we  could 
not  be  joined  and  united  together  corporally, 

"  Divers  other  ancient  fathers  have  used  the  like  manner  of 
speech  ;  but  none  so  much  as  Hilarius  and  dyrillus  ;  whereby  they 
understand  that  Christ  is  present  in  the  sacrament,  as  we  have  said, 
according  to  the  truth  of  his  substance,  of  his  nature,  of  his  flesh,  of 
his  body  and  blood." — Ibid.  p.  472. 

To  which  Jewel  rejoins:  — 

"  Now  at  the  last  M.  Harding  draweth  near  the  matter,  and 
bringeth  forth  the  old  fathers  with  these  very  terms,  *  really,' 

'  substantially,' '  corporally,'  *  carnally,'  &c.,  and  allegeth  these 

few,  as  he  saith,  instead  of  many,  having  indeed  no  more  to 
bring.  And  although  these  fathers  speak  not  any  one  word  that  is 
either  denied  by  us,  or  anywise  serveth  to  this  purpose,  yet  he  cun- 
ningly leadeth  away  the  eyes  of  the  ignorant  with  the  shew  of  old 
names,  and,  like  a  juggler,  changeth  the  natural  countenance  of 
things,  and  maketh  them  appear  what  he  listeth. 

"  For  whereas  he  hath  taken  in  hand  to  prove  that  Christ's  body 
is  really  and  fleshly  in  the  Sacrament,  he  finding  his  weakness  and 
want  therein,  altereth  the  whole  case,  and  proveth  that  Christ's  body 
is  really,  fleshly,  and  naturally  within  us.  But  this  matter  was 
not  in  question,  and  therefore  needeth  no  proof  at  all." — Ibid. 
p.  472. 

The  Bishop,  after  examining  Harding's  authorities,  goes  on 
to  discuss  what  is  meant  by  this  corporal  union  of  Christ  and 
us :  one  of  his  remarks  is : — 

"  Further,  that  we  be  thus  in  Christ,  and  Christ  in  us,  requireth 
not  any  corporal  or  loi'ill  being,  as  in  things  natural.  We  are  in 
Christ  sitting  in  heaven,  and  Christ  sitting  in  heaven  is  here  in  us, 

not  by  a  natural,  but  by  a  spiritual  means  of  being Yet 

notwithstanding,  the  same  conjunction,  because  it  is  spiritual,  true, 
full  and  perfect,  therefore  is  expressed  of  these  holy  fathers  by  the 
term  corporal,  which  removeth  all  manner,  light  and  accidental 
joining ;  and  natural,  whereby  all  manner,  imagination,  or  fantasy, 
and  conjunction  only  of  will  and  consent,  is  excluded :  not  that 
Christ's  body  is  corporally  or  naturally  in  our  body,  as  is  before 


244 

said,  no  more  than  our  bodies  are  corporally  or  naturally  in  Christ's 
body ;  but  that  we  have  life  in  us,  and  are  become  immortal,  be- 
cause by  faith  and  spirit  we  are  partakers  of  the  natural  body  of 
Christ. 

"M.  Harding  saith  :  We  are  thus  joined  unto  Christ,  and  have 
him  corporally  within  us,  only  by  receiving  the  Sacrament,  and  by 
none  other  means.  This  is  utterly  untrue,  as  it  is  already  proved  by 
the  authorities  of  St.  Augustine,  St.  Basil,  Gregory  Nazianzene, 
Leo,  Ignatius,  Bernard,  and  other  holy  fathers  ;  neither  does  either 
Cyrillus  or  Hilary  so  avouch  it.  Certainly,  neither  have  they  all 
Christ  dwelling  in  them  that  receive  the  Sacrament,  nor  are  they  all 
void  of  Christ  that  never  received  the  Sacrament.  Besidesrthe  un- 
truth hereof,  this  doctrine  were  many  ways  very  uncomfortable.  For 
what  may  the  godly  father  think  of  his  child,  thatr  being  baptized, 
departeth  this  life  without  receiving  the  Sacrament  of  Christ's  body  ? 
By  M.  Harding's  construction,  he  must  needs  think  his  child  is 
damned,  for  that  it  had  no  natural  participation  of  Christ's  flesh, 
without  which  there  is  no  salvation  ;  which  participation,,  as  M.  Har- 
ding assureth  us,  is  had  by  none  other  means,  but  only  by  receiving 
of  the  Sacrament.  Yet  St.  Chrysostom  saith  r  Mn  the  Sacrament 
of  Baptism  we  are  made  flesh  of  Christ's  flesh,  and  bone  of  his 
bones.' 

"  For  better  trial  hereof,  understand  thou,  gentle  reader,  that  both 
Cyrillus  and  Hilarius  in  those  places  dispute  against  the  Arians 
whose  error  was  this,  that  God  the  Father  and  the  Son  are  one,  not, 
by  nature,  but  only  by  will  and  consent.  Against  them  Hikrius 
reasoned  thus  : — 

"  Christ  is  as  really  joined  unto  the  Father  as  unto  us  : 

"  But  Christ  is  joined  unto  us  by  nature  : 

"  Therefore  Christ  is  joined  to  God  the  Father  by  nature." 

After  some  explanation  of  this  syllogism,  Jewel  concludes 
thus : — 

"  Christ's  body  is  not  naturally  or  corporally  present  within 

us; 
"  Therefore  much  less  is  it  corporally  present  in  the  Sacrament." 

— Ibid.,  pp.  477-8. 

The  disputants  then  go  on  to  discuss  another  point,  viz. : — 

"  That  Christ's  body  is  or  may  be  in  a  thousand  places  or  more  at 
one  time." 

Harding  alleged  that — 

" the  ancient  fathers  of  the  Church  have  confessed  and 

taught  both  these  beings,  of  Christ  in  heaven  and  in  the  Sacrament 
together " — Ibid.,  p.  485. 


245 

Jewel,  in  his  reply,  says  : — 

"  But  first,  for  the  clearer  conceiving  of  the  answer  hereunto,  un- 
derstand, good  Christian  reader,  that  by  the  record  of  the  old  fathers 
Christ  is  present  among  us  sundry  ways :  by  his  Holy  Spirit,  as 
Cyrillus  saith ;  by  his  grace,  as  Eusebius  Emissenus  saith  ;  by  his 
divinity  and  majesty,  as  St.  Augustine  saith  ;  by  faith  dwelling  in 
our  hearts,  as  St.  Paul  says.  Thus  is  Christ  most  comfortably 
present  in  his  holy  word,  in  the  mystery  of  Baptism,  and  in  the  Sa- 
crament of  his  body.  We  deny  only  that  gTOSS  and  fleshly  pre- 
sence that  M.  Harding  here  defendeth  ;  wherein  we  have  the  autho- 
rity and  consent  of  the  old  learned  fathers.  For,  to  allege  one  instead 
of  many,  St.  Augustine  saith  :  . . . .  '  The  body  wherein  Christ  rose 
again  must  be  in  one  place.'  " — Ibid.,  p.  486. 

Farther  on  in  the  argument,  Harding  quotes  the  passage 
from  Bucer  (already  given  at  p.  73,  as  cited  by  Gardiner 
to  Cranmer),  comparing  Christ's  Presence  in  the  Sacra- 
ment to  the  Presence  of  the  sun  in  the  earth :  Jewel  thus 
comments  upon  it : — 

"  ....  the  very  similitude  or  example  that  he  useth  of  the  sun 
putteth  the  matter  out  of  all  question.  For  like  as  the  body  or 
compass  of  the  sun,  being  in  one  certain  place  of  the  heavens, 
reacheth  out  his  beams,  and  giveth  influence  into  the  world  ;  even 
so  Christ,  the  sun  of  justice,  being  in  heaven  in  one  place  at  the  right 
hand  of  God,  likewise  reacheth  out  his  beams,  and  giveth  his  in- 
fluence into  the  faithful,  and  so  feedeth  them,  not  by  bare  imagi- 
nation or  fantasy,  but  truly,  substantially,  and  indeed •  And  as 

the  sun  is  more  comfortable,  and  more  refresheth  the  world,  being 
absent,  by  his  beams,  than  if  his  very  natural  substance  and  compass 
lay  here  upon  the  earth  ;  even  so  the  body  of  Christ,  being  in  the 
glory  of  his  father,  in  the  very  substance  and  nature  of  our  flesh,  and 
there  evermore  entreating  mercy  for  our  sins,  is  much  more  comfortable 
unto  us,  and  more  quickeneth  both  our  bodies  and  souls  by  his  heaven- 
ly and  spiritual  influence,  than  if  it  were  here  present  flesllly  before 
our  eyes.  And  as  the  sun,  not  coming  down  from  heaven,  nor 
leaving  his  place,  is  nevertheless  present  with  us  in  our  houses,  in 
our  faces,  in  our  hands,  and  in  our  bosoms  ;  even  so  Christ,  being 
in  heaven,  not  coming  down,  nor  leaving  his  room  there,  yet  never- 
theless is  present  with  us  in  our  congregations,  in  our  hearts,  in  our 
prayers,  in  the  mystery  of  baptism,  and  in  the  Sacrament  of  his  body 
and  blood." — Ibid.,  p.  499. 

Moreover,  Harding,  rejecting  a  physical  presence,  says  : — 

"  And  that  all  absurdities  and  carnal  gTOSSneSS  be  severed  from 
our  thoughts,  where  true  Christian  people  believe  Christ's  body  to 
be  in  many  places  at  once,  they  understand  it  so  to  be  in  a  mystery 
"— Ibid.,  p.  504. 


246 

Jewel,  in  his  answer,  makes  this  remark  : — 

"  Again  he  [St.  Augustine]  saith  :  . .  . .  'Christ  by  his  Godhead 
is  ever  with  us ;  but  unless  he  had  departed  away  bodily  from  us,  we 
should  evermore  carnally  see  his  body.'  These  words  are  specially 
to  be  noted.  If  Christ  were  bodily  here,  he  should  carnally  be 
seen  :  therefore,  by  St.  Augustine's  judgment,  if  Christ  were  bodily 
present  in  the  Sacrament,  we  should  see  him  carnally  in  the  Sacra- 
ment."— lbidt  p.  505. 

Another  proposition  which  Jewel  challenged  the  Roman 
party  to  prove  was  : — 

"  That  the  people  did  then  fall  down  and  worship  the  Sacrament 
with  godly  honour." 

Harding,  in  taking  up  the  challenge,  cited  St.  Chrysostom  ; 
Jewel,  in  examining  the  passage,  says  : — 

"  In  this  wise  therefore,  having  removed  the  people's  hearts  into 
heaven,  and  placed  them  even  in  the  sight  of  Christ,  he  saith  further 
unto  them  :  For  this  body's  sake  thou  art  no  longer  dust  and  ashes  ; 
this  body  hath  made  thee  free  ;  this  body  was  broken  for  thee  upon 
the  cross  ;  this  body  must  we  adore,  as  the  wise  men  did  ;  this  body 
not  now  upon  the  earth,  but  at  the  right  hand  of  God  in  heaven  ; 
this  body  that  thou  seest  with  thy  spirit,  and  touchest  with  thy 
faith,  whereof  the  Sacrament  that  thou  receivest  is  a  mystery.  So 
saith  Emissenus  :....'  With  thy  faith  behold  the  holy  body  of 
thy  God,  touch  it  with  thy  mind,  receive  it  with  the  hand  of  thy 
heart.1 

"  But  M.  Harding  will  reply,  Chrysostom  saith  :  *  As  Christ  was 
in  the  stall,  so  he  is  now  upon  the  altar ;  and  as  he  was  sometimes 
in  the  woman's  arms,  so  he  is  now  in  the  priest's  hands.'  True  it  is 
Christ  was  there,  and  Christ  is  here  ;  but  not  in  one  or  like  sort  of 
being.  For  he  was  in  the  stall  by  bodily  presence  ;  upon  the  holy 
table  he  is  by  way  of  a  Sacrament.  The  woman  in  her  arms  held 
him  really;  the  priest  in  his  hands  holdeth  him  only  in  a  mystery. 
So  saith  St.  Paul:  *  Christ  dwelleth  in  our  hearts;'  and  no  doubt 
the  same  Christ  that  lay  in  the  stall.  It  is  one  and  the  same  Christ ; 
but  the  difference  standeth  in  the  manner  of  his  being  there  :  for  in 
the  stall  he  lay  by  presence  of  his  body ;  in  our  hearts  he  lieth  by 
presence  of  faith." — Ibid.,  p.  539. 

Once  more ;  Harding  quoted  the  comment  of  SS.  Am- 
brose and  Augustin  upon  Psalm  xix.  5  :  Jewel  ends  his 
answer  in  these  words  :  — 

"  But  they  will  reply,  St.  Ambrose  saith  :  '  We  do  adore  Christ's 
flesh  in  the  mysteries.'  Hereof  groweth  their  whole  error.  For 
St.  Ambrose  saith  not,  We  do  adore  the  mysteries,  or  the  flesh  of 
Christ  really  present,  or  materially  contained  in  the  mysteries  ;  as 


247 

it  is  supposed  by  Mr.  Harding.  Only  he  saith,  '  We  adore  Christ's 
flesh  in  the  mysteries,'  that  is  to  say,  in  the  ministration  of  the  mys- 
teries. And  doubtless  it  is  our  duty  to  adore  the  body  of  Christ  in 
the  Word  of  God,  in  the  Sacrament  of  baptism,  in  the  mysteries  of 
Christ's  body  and  blood,  and  wheresoever  we  see  any  step  or  token 
of  it,  but  especially  in  the  holy  mysteries  ;  for  that  there  is  lively 
laid  forth  before  us  the  whole  story  of  Christ's  conversation  in  the 
flesh.  But  this  adoration,  as  it  is  said  before,  neither  is  directed  to 
the  Sacraments,  nor  requireth  any  corporal  or  real  pre- 
sence  " — Ibid.,  p.  542. 

Another  point  in  the  controversy  was  this  : — 

"  that  in  the  Sacrament,  after  the  words  of  consecration,  there  re- 
main only  the  accidents,  and  shews  without  the  substance  of  bread 
and  wine." 

In  answering  one  of  Harding' s  arguments,  Jewel  says  :  — 

"  The  question  between  us  is  not,  whether  the  bread  be  the  body 
of  Christ,  or  no  ;  but  whether  in  plain  and  simple  manner  of  speech 
it  be  fleshly  and  really  the  body  of  Christ."  —  Ibid.,  Vol.  II., 
p.  570. 

So,  too,  when  discussing  the  12th  Article  : — 

"  that  whosoever  had  said  the  Sacrament  is  a  figure,  a  pledge,  a 
token,  or  a  remembrance  of  Christ's  body,  had  therefore  been 
judged  for  an  heretic." 

The  Bishop,  in  reference  to  a  quotation  which  Harding 
made  from  S.  Hilary,  remarks : — 

"  Further,  we  may  say  that  Christ's  body  is  in  the  Sacrament  it- 
self, understanding  it  to  be  there  as  in  a  mystery.  But  to  this  man- 
ner of  being  there  is  required  neither  circumstance  of  place,  nor  any 
corporal  or  real  presence."—  Ibid.,  p.  604. 

Again,  comparing  a  passage  from  St.  Gregory  with  one 
which  Harding  had  cited  from  St.  Augustin,  Jewel  ob- 
serves : — 

"  Now,  as  Christ  dieth  in  the  Sacrament,  so  is  his  body  present  in 
the  Sacrament.  But  Christ  dieth  not  there  really  and  indeed  J 
therefore  Christ's  body  is  not  there  really  and  indeed. "—Ibid., 
p.  618. 

"And  thus  St.  Augustine's  meaning  may  well  stand  upright 
without  any  new  secrecy  or  real  or  fleshly  presence." — Ibid.t 
p.  619. 

Further,  in  arguing  the  17th  Article  : — 

"  that  the  priest  had  then  authority  to  offer  up  Christ  unto  his 
Father." 


248 

Jewel  remarks  thus  upon  a  sentence  of  St.  Cbrysostom : — 

"  Thus  the  death  of  Christ  is  renewed  before  our  eyes.  Yet 
Christ  indeed  neither  is  crucified,  nor  dieth,nor  sheddeth  his  blood, 
nor  is  substantially  present,  nor  really  offered  by  the  priest." — 
Ibid,  p.  710. 

Later,  in  the  same  argument,  he  observes  thus : — 

"  Therefore  St.  Gregory  saith :  .  .  .  .  '  Christ,  living  immortally 
in  himself,  dieth  again  in  this  mystery.  His  flesh  suffereth  (in  the 
mystery)  for  the  salvation  of  the  people.'  I  reckon,  M.  Harding 
will  not  say  that  Christ  dieth  indeed,  according  to  the  force  and 
sound  of  these  words,  or  that  his  flesh  verily  and  indeed  is  tor- 
mented and  suffereth  in  the  Sacrament." — Ibid.,  p.  726. 

And,  once  more,  he  says:  — 

"  In  like  manner  the  ministration  of  the  holy  communion  is  some- 
times of  the  ancient  fathers  called  an  '  unbloody  sacrifice  ;'  not  in 
respect  of  any  corporal  or  fleshly  presence  that  is  imagined  to  be 
there  without  blood-shedding,  but  for  that  it  representeth  and  re- 
porteth  unto  our  minds  that  one  and  everlasting  sacrifice  that  Christ 
made  in  his  body  upon  the  cross." — Ibid.,  p.  734. 

Moreover,  in  their  dispute  touching  the  £lst  Article  : — 

"  that  then  any  Christian  man  called  the  Sacrament  his  Lord  and 
God." 

The  Bishop  of  Salisbury  replies  to  his  opponent  thus  : — 

"  In  the  end,  M.  Harding  confirmeth  this  doctrine  by  the  confu- 
tation of  an  error,  which,  for  the  novelty  and  strangeness  of  it,  may 
easily  seem  to  be  his  own  ;  and  therefore  ought  of  right  to  be  called 
•*  M.  Harding's  error  :'  for  I  believe  it  was  never  neither  defended 
nor  imagined  by  any  other. 

'*  He  surmiseth  there  be  some  that  either  have  said,  or  else  may 
.say,  that  Christ's  flesh  is  present  really  in  the  Sacrament ;  howbeit 
dead  and  bloodless,  and  utterly  void  both  of  soul  and  Godhead. 
This  is  a  new  error,  never  tamed  or  touched  before  this  time.* 

*  I  should  be  most  sorry  to  misrepresent,  in  the  least  degree,  Mr.  Freeman, 
and  therefore  I  do  not  venture  to  say  that  he  has  made  the  kind  of  statement 
which  Jewel  here  condemns ;  but,  in  common  with  others,  one  hopes  to  see  some 
explanation  in  bis  expected  volume  of  certain  passages  contained  in  Sect.  xii. 
(pp.  143—145)  of  bis  published  "Introduction  to  Part  ii."  (J.  H.  &  J.  Parker, 
1857).  I  subjoin  tbe  following  as  indicating  what  I  refer  to:  — 

"  ....  The  Presence  of  Christ  is  assumed,  without  entering  into  any  argument, 
to  be  a  necessary  result  of  tbe  Presence  of  His  Body  and  Blood." — p.  149. 

"  . .  .  .His  [Christ's]  Deatb  being  as  real  as  any  man's,  His  broken  Body  and 
His  Blood  poured  out  in  Deatb  were  no  more  tbe  Man  Christ  Jesus,  tban  tbe 
body  and  blood  of  any  other  man  are  tbat  man.  True  it  is  that  from  neither 
His  Body  nor  His  soul  was  tbe  Divinity  ever  separated,  but  was  so  present  witb 
Botb  that  neither  could  tbe  One  be  left  in  Hell,  nor  tbe  Other  see  Corruption 
"—p.  149. 


"As  for  us  we  do  constantly  believe  and  confess  that  Christ,  the 
very  natural  Son  of  God,  received  our  flesh  of  the  blessed  virgin, 
and  that,  wheresoever  that  flesh  is,  there  is  also  both  the  Godhead 
and  the  soul. 

"  Of  this  undoubted  truth  M.  Harding  gathereth  an  impertinent 
conclusion.  For  thus  he  reasoneth  :  *  If  Christ  be  verily  under  the 
form  of  bread  in  the  Sacrament,  then  is  he  there  entire  and  whole, 
God  and  man.'  Indeed,  the  first  being  granted,  the  rest  must  needs 
follow.  But  how  is  M.  Harding  so  well  assured  of  the  first?  What 
old  doctor  or  ancient  father  ever  taught  him  that  Christ's  body  is 
really  and  fleshly  present  under  these  forms  or  fantasies  of  bread 
and  wine  ?" — Ibid.,  p.  770. 

Other  passages,  of  a  like  character  with  these  now  quoted, 


With  much  deference  I  cannot  but  ask  Mr.  F. — did  not  this  Presence  of  the 
Divinity  make  exactly  that  distinction  of  union  between  Chris? s  Body  and  Soul 
after  death,  and  man's  body  and  soul  after  death,  which  points  towards  one 
answer  to  his  following  question  ? — 

"  And  next,  if  the  broken  and  poured-out  Body  and  Blood  of  Christ,  in  Their 
natural  condition  and  manner  of  existence,  were  not  Christ,  —as  certainly  they 
were  not, — have  we  any  reason  for  saying  or  conceiving  that  in  Their  supra- 
natural  and  sacramental  manner  of  existence  they  are  Christ  ? . . . ." — p.  150. 

To  my  mind  Ridley  seemed  to  think  so  when  he  said  (see  p.  60),  "...  .that 
Heavenly  Lamb,  is  (as  I  confess)  on  the  table  ;  but  by  a  spiritual  presence,"  &c. 
And  again — "  I  grant  the  Priest  holdeth  the  same  Thing  [which  the  woman  did 
hold  in  her  womb],  but  after  another  manner." 

Pursuing  the  idea,  Mr.  F.  further  says : — 

" The  unreceived  Elements  are  the  Body  and  Blood  of  Christ,  and  no 

more  :  but  '  he  that  eateth  and  drinketh '  of  them  aright  hath  in  him  CHBIST 
Himself,  and  no  less,  and  is  united  to  Him." — p.  154. 

But,  again,  to  quote  Ridley  (see  p.  56),  " . .  . .  I  grant ....  Christ  is  offered  in 
many  places  at  once,  in  a  mystery  and  sacramentally,  and  that  He  is  full  Christ 
in  all  those  places,"  etc. 

Once  more  Mr.  F.  writes  : — 

"..  The  natural  Body  of  Christ,  once  slain, ....  was,  nevertheless,  after 
being  received,  into  the  receptacle  of  God's  appointing,  the  heart  of  the  Earth, 
reunited  to  That  Soul  by  the  operation  of  the  interposed  Divinity;  and  so 
CHRIST  HIMSELF  was  once  more  truly  alive,  and  rose  again.  And  even  so,  when 
His  Body  and  Blood,  existing  in  a  new  and  specially  provided  manner,  have  been 
received  into  the  duly  qualified  bodies  and  souls  of  men,  does  the  same  vital  re- 
union, as  it  should  seem,  take  place,  and  so  CHRIST  HIMSELF,  in  Body,  Soul,  and 
Divinity,  is  in  them  of  truth,  and  raises  them,  together  with  Himself,  to  a  glo- 
rious immortality." — p.  154. 

But  Jewel  says  (see  above),  "...  .we  do  constantly  believe  and  confess. . . . 
that,  wheresoever  that  flesh  is,  there  is  also  both  the  Godhead  and  the  soul :" 
Mr.  F.  admits  the  "  Body  and  Blood"  =  Flesh,  to  be  "  existing  in  a  new  and 
specially  provided  manner,"  i.e.,  I  suppose,  in  the  Sacrament ;  and  Jewel  only 
denies  i\\Q  fleshly  presence  of  "  Christ's  Body. .  ..under  these  forms  or  fantasies 
of  bread  and  wine."  therefore  it  seems  necessarily  to  follow  that  the  Sacra- 
mental Body  and  Blood  of  Christ  is  CHRIST,  and  that,  as  the  Declaration  seems 
also  to  teach,  "  Christ "  is  "  therein  given  to  all  worthy  Receivers,"  not  formed 
in  them,  as  Mr.  F.'s  language  appears  to  teach. 

K    K 


250 

will  be  found  in  pp.  167,  464,  467,  475,*  483,  490-3,  500-4, 
520,  548,  551,  601,  620,  708,  711-18,  733,  760,  765,  781, 
785,  797,  798.     Tn  common,  however,  with  the  extracts  here 
given,  it  will  be  found  that  they  alike  mainly  aim  at  destroy- 
ing the  notion  of  a  physical,  carnal  Presence  ;  as  if  that  were 
the  point  continually  prominent  in  Jewel's  mind  and  the  one 
which  he  felt  he  must  ever  present  to  his  adversary ;  though 
it  must.be  owned  that  he  did  not  always  avoid,  at  least  seem- 
ing, inconsistencies  which  blunted  its  sharpness,  or,  at  least 
apparent,    exaggerations    which    weakened    its   force ;    and 
though,  like  other  anti-Roman  writers  of  that  period,  he  not 
only  at  times  deals  with  his  opponent  as  though  he  thought 
it  impossible  for  him  to  employ  a  fair  or  sound  argument ; 
but  also  often  himself  uses  language  which  seems  barely,  if 
at  all,  capable  of,  what  the  advocates  of  the  Real  Presence, 
would   consider  a   Catholic  meaning.     But,  I  repeat,  it  is 
essential  to  a  fair  judgment  of  his  words  (as  also  in  the  case 
of  Cranmer  and   other  writers  of  the  same  period  already 
quoted)  to  bear  constantly  in  mind — that  he  was  ever  aiming 
at  the  destruction  of  that  belief  in  a  natural  Presence,  which 
had  become  so  popular,  and  which  was  extremely  likely  to  be 
sustained  by  any  concession,  however  small,  to  the  current 
phraseology  of  its  advocates.     It  is,  therefore,  both  fair  and 
necessary,  whenever  possible,  so  to  interpret  what  may  be 
called  his  lower  and  laxer  Doctrinal  statements  as  to  make 
them  harmonize  with  his  stricter  and  higher  ones ;  while  it 
would  be  an  error,  and  unfair  to  Jewel  himself,  to  interpret 
his  statements  by  the  opposite  method,  unless  we  determined 
wholly  to  ignore  his  repeated  professions  of  submission  to  the 
teaching  of  the  Catholic  Church  during  the  first  six  centuries. 
Perhaps  Mr.  Goode,  like  other  writers  on  his  side  of  the  con- 
troversy, is   not  wholly  free  from   this  erroneous  mode  of 
dealing   with   Jewel   and   his   sixteenth   century  contempo- 
raries. 

*  "  That  we  verily  and  undoubtedly  receive  Christ's  body  in  the  Sacrament, 
it  is  neither  denied,  nor  in  question."— This  is  the  sentence  quoted  by  Bishop 
Guest  [I.]  8.  (See  p.  199). 


251 

In  noticing  Mr.  Goode's  "  Supplement "  my  purpose  was 
not  to  make  any  general  answer  to  it,  but  only  to  consider  his 
observations  upon  Bishop  Guest's  Letters :  it  seems  to  me, 
however,  not  out  of  place  here  to  advert  to  some  other  pas- 
sages which  bear  upon  the  subject  of  this  Letter;  this  rele- 
vancy must  be  my  excuse  for  noticing  Mr.  Goode's  criticisms 
upon  the  statements  and  arguments  of  those  for  whom  it 
would,  else,  be  a  presumption  in  me  to  attempt  any  reply  : 
though,  indeed,  Mr.  Goode  himself  invites  it ;  for  in  no  less 
than  seven  places  within  the  short  compass  of  twenty -four 
pages  (23  to  47)  does  he  "  leave  "  points,  which  (as  in  fact  his 
own  notice  of  them  proves)  are  far  from  unimportant,  to  "  the 
reader  to  choose  "  between,  or  "  to  be  disposed  of  "  by  him, 
or  "  to  pass  judgment"  upon,  or  "to  make  his  own  com- 
ments "  on,  and  the  like. 

First  of  all  I  must  notice  a  strange  oversight  on  the  part 
of  Mr.  Goode ;  he  complains  (p.  18)  of  Dr.  Pusey  having 
written  thus  : — 

"Mr.  Goode  frequently  excepts  against  the  belief  in  the  oral 
reception  of  the  Holy  Eucharist.  Isidore,  embodying  in  his  own 
statement  the  words  of  St.  Augustine,  states  it  as  explicitly  as 
words  could  express  it :  '  that  in  honour  of  so  great  a  Sacrament  the 
Lord's  Body  should  enter  the  mouth  of  a  Christian  before  any  other 
food.'  ([Real  Presence]  p.  xxv.)" 

Mr.  Goode  says  that : — 

"  in  this  passage  there  is  a  double  attempt  to  mislead  the  reader ; 
[1]  for  according  to  the  sense  in  which  the  terms  '  Holy  Eucharist' 
and  '  the  Lord's  body'  are  used  by  Dr.  Pusey 's  opponents,  I  have, 
of  course,  never  excepted  against  the  belief  in  the  oral  reception  of 
the  former ;  [2]  and  Isidore  states  nothing  of  the  kind  imputed  to 
him  by  Dr.  Pusey." 

But  surely  Mr.  Goode  need  not  fear  that  any  reader  of 
ordinary  discernment  could  be  misled  by  Dr.  Pusey's  words  : 
the  passage  itself  plainly  shews  that  he  there  used  the  term 
"  the  Lord's  Body"  as  equivalent:  to  "  the  Holy  Eucharist ;" 
and  that  it  was  in  "  the  sense"  of  Its  being  "  the  Lord's 
Body"  that  he  spoke  of  Mr.  Goode's  exception  to  "the 
belief  in  the  oral  reception"  of  It :  the  whole  context  of  the 
passage  makes  this  still  clearer. 


252 

To  prove  the  second  [2]  part  of  the  "  attempt  to  mislead" 
Mr.  Goode  says  (p.  19)  : — 

"  As  to  the  extract  from  Isidore,  if  the  context  had  been  given, 
there  could  not  have  been  quoted,  as  I  have  already  shown,*  a 
passage  more  clearly  showing  the  error  of  Dr.  Pusey  in  affixing  the 
meaning  he  does  to  the  words  he  has  cited ;  for  Isidore  immediately 
afterwards  says  : — 'Bread,  inasmuch  as  it  strengthens  the  body,  is 
therefore  called  the  Body  of  Christ ;  but  wine,  inasmuch  as  it  pro- 
duces blood  in  the  flesh,  is  therefore  referred  (or,  likened)  to  the 
blood  of  Christ." 

The  Italics  are  Mr.  G  code's. 

Now  will  it  be  believed  that  Dr.  Pusey  had  actually  given 
this  very  "  context"  and  that  it  is  only  separated  by  two  lines 
from  the  passage  ("  Mr.  Goode  frequently,"  etc.)  of  which 
Mr.  Goode  complains  ?  The  two  lines  are  these,  they  follow 
the  words  "  the  blood  of  Christ,"  and  Mr.  Goode  would  have 
done  well  to  quote  them  in  order  to  assist  his  readers  in  un- 
derstanding his  "  context"  from  S.  Isidore  : — 

"  These,  then,  as  being  visible,  yet  sanctified  by  the  Holy  Ghost, 
pass  into  the  Sacrament  of  the  Divine  Body." — (Real  Presence, 
p.  xxv.) 

It  is,  however,  very  unfortunate  that  while  Mr.  Goode 
calls  the  passage  he  has  cited  from  Dr.  Pusey  "  an  apt 
specimen  of  the  unfairness  of  the  mode  of  argumentation 
usually  adopted  by  Dr.  Pusey  and  his  party"  and  blames  Dr. 
Pusey  for  not  quoting  a  context  which  he  had  quoted — (or 
perhaps,  to  be  accurate  enough  for  Mr.  Goode,  I  ought  to 
say — for  not  re-quoting  a  context  which  could  ,only  have 
benefitted  the  Printer) — it  is,  I  say,  unfortunate  that  Mr. 
Goode  himself  should  have  been  guilty  of  a  more  serious 
omission  than  the  one  he  deprecates :  he  tells  us  that 
"  Isidore  immediately  afterwards"  he  had  used  the  words 
"  the  Lord's  Body  should  enter  the  mouth  of  a  Christian 
before  any  other  food,''  sa;ys,  "  *  Bread  inasmuch/  "  etc. 

Now,  really,  when  Mr.viGoode  alleges  that  it  is  "  the  un- 
fairness of. ...  Dr.  Pusey  a-iid  his  party,  which  renders  it  im- 
possible for  any  one,  perusing  their  works  alone,  to  have  an 

*  "  See  my  Work  on  the  Eucharist,  p.  242,  where  other  testimonies  will  be 
found  of  the  sense  in  which  such  terms  were  used  by  the  Fathers." 


253 

idea  of  the  nature  of  the  points  in  dispute"  (p.  19),  he  ought 
not  to  have  made  it  incumbent  upon  his  own  readers  to  refer 
to  Dr.  Pusey's  own  extract  from  S.  Isidore  in  order  to  ascer- 
tain whether  he  (Mr.  Goode)  has  used  the  word  "  imme- 
diately "  in  an  exact,  or  in  a  loose  "  sense."  Yet  what  does 
the  reference  reveal  ?  Why  that  S.  Isidore  interposes  the 
following  most  important  words  between  the  two  passages 
which  I  put  in  brackets  to  shew  the  connexion  of  the  whole 
paragraph — passages  which  Mr.  Goode  says  follow  "  imme- 
diately" upon  each  other  : — 

"  [For  this  took  place  then,  as  a  mystery.  I  mean,  that  the  disci- 
ples at  first  did  not  receive  the  Body  and  Blood  of  the  Lord  fasting. 
But  now  by  the  whole  Church  it  is  received  fasting.  For  so  it 
pleased  the  Holy  Ghost  through  the  Apostles,  '  that  in  honour  of  so 
great  a  Sacrament,  the  Lord's  Body  should  enter  the  mouth  of  a 
Christian  before  any  other  food,]  and  therefore  is  that  custom  kept 
throughout  the  whole  world."  For  the  Bread  which  we  break,  is 
the  Body  of  Christ,  Who  said,  *  I  am  the  Living  Bread  which  came 
down  from  Heaven.'  But  the  wine  is  His  Blood,  and  this  it  is,  which 
is  written,  '  I  am  the  true  vine  ;'  but  [bread,  because  it  strengthens 
the  body,  is  therefore  called  the  Body  of  Christ :  but  the  wine,  be- 
cause it  produces  blood  in  the  flesh,  is  therefore  referred  to  the 
Blood  of  Christ]." — (Real  Presence,  p.  xxv.) 

I  would,  then,  beg  Mr.  Goode  carefully  to  consider  whether 
the  passage  beginning,  "  and  therefore,"  etc.,  and  ending 
"  '  true  vine ;'  but"  (which,  indeed,  he  has  also  omitted  in  his 
"  Work  on  the  Eucharist,  p.  242,"  to  which  he  refers  us — 
See  p.  252)  does  not  tell  much  more  against  him  than  the, 
alleged,  omitted  "  context"  makes  for  him,  even  though  one 
could  allow  that  he  has  so  printed  that  context  as  to  furnish 
the  true  index  to  its  meaning  ? 

But  has  he  thus  truly  indicated  the  purpose  of  S.  Isidore? 
I  speak  only  with  the  diffidence  which  becomes  me  when  I 
say  that  Mr.  Goode  appears  to  me  to  have  entirely  missed  the 
intention  of  that  writer  in  the  latter  part  of  the  paragraph. 

For,  first  of  all,  his  way  of  quoting  it  is  calculated  to  mis- 
lead ;  he  prints  it  (See  p.  252)  as  though  the  word  "  Bread" 
began  the  sentence,  instead  of  occurring,  as  it  does,  nearly  in 
the  middle  of  it:  next,  his  italicizing  of  the  sentence  is  quite 
partial,  for  he  omits  thus  to  treat  the  words  "referred  to  the 


254 

Blood  of  Christ :"  thirdly,  he  appears  not  to  perceive,  what 
seems  to  me  observable,  that  S.  Isidore  is  only  explaining  why 
"bread,"  and  not  "  wine,"  is  "called  the  Body  of  Christ;'' 
why  "  wine,"  and  not  "  bread,"  is  "  referred  to  the  Blood  of 
Christ ;"  it  matters  nothing  whether  his  theory  of  the  relative 
nutritious  properties  of  bread  and  wine  would  be  sanctioned 
or  not  by  modern  Chemists  and  Physiologists  ;  his  purpose 
was  simply  to  furnish,  what  seemed  to  him  to  be,  the  reason 
for  the  Sacramental  bread  being  termed  "  the  Body "  "  of 
Christ  "  which  God  graciously  gives  for  "  the  strengthening  ;" 
and  the  wine  being  termed  "  the  Blood  "  "of  Christ  "  which 
is  mercifully  afforded  for  "the  refreshing  of  our  souls." 

There  is  yet  a  fourth  way  in  which  Mr.  Goode  seems  to  me 
to  have  misrepresented  (however  unintentionally)  S.  Isidore's 
meaning:  whether  he  has  merely  quoted  Dr.  Pusey's  trans- 
lation or  not  I  cannot  say  ;  however,  they  coincide  verbatim, 
except  Mr.  Goode's  Italics  :  but  then  Mr.  Goode  has  thought 
it  right  to  insert  the  words  "  (or,  likened),"  See  p.  252,  by 
way  of  explaining  S.  Isidore's  expression  "  referred :"  *  but 
surely  to  make  "  likened  "  the  equivalent  of  "  referred" 
though  it  may  seem  to  serve  Mr.  Goode's  argument  by 
making  "  referred  "  the  synonym  of  "  called,"  wholly  perverts 
S.  Isidore's  purpose,  which,  as  I  think,  was  only  to  shew  that 
the  "  bread"  and  the  "wine"  were  each  "  REFERRED  "  respec- 
tively and  only  to  the  "Body"  and  "  Blood"  of  Christ,  on  the 
grounds  which  S.  Isidore  mentions  :  I  cannot  doubt  that  we 
were  meant  to  explain  (if  indeed  explanation  be  needed) 
"called"  by  "  referred/'  and  are  not  to  interpret  "referred"  by 
"  likened  ;"  and  this,  as  it  appears  to  me,  removes  all  pretence 
for  saying  that  S.  Isidore  (among  the  other  Fathers  whom 
Mr.  Goode  names)  in  giving  "  us  reasons  why  the  bread  in 
the  Eucharist  is  called  Christ's  Body,  and  the  wine  His 
Blood,"  shews  that  he  "  did  not  consider  them  so  really,  but 
only  representatively."  (The  Nature  of  Christ's  Presence  in 
the  Eucharist,  p.  241.)  On  the  contrary,  it  seems  well  nigh 
impossible  for  him  to  have  spoken  of  them  in  stronger  terms, 

*  "Refertur":  Mr.  Goode  gives  the  original  of  this  "context"  iri  his  "  work 
on  the  Eucharist,  p.  242." 


255 

as  being  "so  really,"  than  in  saying  "..the  Bread  which  we 

break    is   the    Body    of   Christ, But    the  wine  is  His 

Blood  .  .  ."* 

To  pass  on  now  to  another  of  Mr.  Goode's  remarks  :  he 
says  (p.  19)  : — 

"  ....  in  order  to  get  rid  of  objections,  a  terminology  is  adopted 
which  may  enable  Dr.  Pusey  to  hold  his  doctrine,  and  at  the  same 
time  deliver  him  from  the  necessity  of  meeting  the  difficulties  attach- 
ing to  it.  Thus  he  says,  *  In  the  Holy  Eucharist,  the  Body  and 
Blood  of  Christ  do  not  (as  Mr,  Goode  often  represents  us  as  teaching) 
form  one  whole  [i.e.  with  the  bread  and  wine]  except  sacramentally. 
There  is  no  physical  union  of  the  Body  and  Blood  of  Christ  with  the 
bread  and  wine.'  (p.  xvii.)  But  what  is  the  meaning  of  the  words 
except  sacramentally  ?  Dr.  Pusey  holds  that  the  two  are  so  united 
that  they  necessarily  go  together  into  the  mouth  of  the  communi- 
cant. Whether  Dr.  Pusey  chooses  to  call  this  union  sacramental, 
....  or  anything  else,  is  a  matter  of  indifference.  The  fact  of  such 
a  union  is  the  question  in  dispute.  And  to  give  it  an  ambiguous  or 
incomprehensible  epithet,  in  order  to  make  it  unassailable,  is  useless, 
except  to  mislead  the  reader." 

But  Mr.  Goode  ought  rather  to  complain  of  the  Refor- 
mation writers,  who,  as  he  must  know,  used  these  very  terms  : 
I  will  just  refer  to  those  already  quoted  in  these  pages. 

FOXE  says — that  the  third  "conclusion"  of  P.  Martyr's 
discussion  at  Oxford  was,  "  The  Body  and  Blood  of  Christ 
be  united  to  bread  and  wine  sacramentally." — p.  10. 

DR.  MADEW  replied  to  Dr.  Glyn, — "  Forsooth  He  has  but 
one  very  Body  .  .  . ;  but  the  same  is  sacramentally  in  the 
Sacrament »  .  ." — p.  14. 

CR AN MER,  explaining  his  uses  of  the  word  *'*  Sacrament," 
says,  I  use  to  speak  sometimes  (as  the  old  authors  do)  ...  of 
His  sacramental  presence.'' — p.  20. 

*  Since  the  above  was  in  type  I  have  met  with  the  following  corroborative 
passage  in  Harding  v.  Jewel: — "Likewise  in  the  Sacrament  of  the  holy  com- 
munion, as  the  bread  outwardly  feedeth  our  bodies,  so  doth  Christ's  body  in- 
wardly and  spiritually  feed  our  souls.  Thus  is  feeding  an  effect  common  unto 
them  both.  And  therein  standeth  the  resemblance  and  likeness  of  the  Sacra- 
ment. Therefore  Rabanus  Maurus  (lib.  i.  cap.  xxxi.)  saith  :  Q,uia  panis  corporis 
cor  confirmat,  ideo  ille  congruenter  corpus  Christi  nominatur ;  et,  quia  vinum 
sanguinem  operatur  in  carne.  ideo  illud  refertur  ad  sanguinem  :  '  Because  the 
bread  confirmeth  the  heart  of  our  body,  therefore  is  the  same  conveniently  called 
the  body  of  Christ ;  and,  because  wine  worketh  blood  in  our  flesh :  therefore  the 
wine  hath  relation  unto  the  blood  of  Christ."  '—p.  793. 


256 

Again,  answering  Gardiner,  his  words  are — "  We  say,  that 
the  Body  of  Christ  ....  is  in  the  Sacrament  sacramentally, 
and  in  the  worthy  receivers  spiritually,  without  the  proper 
form  and  quantity  of  His  Body." — p.  23. 

<f  .  .  .  .  the  bread  is  called  Christ's  Body  after  consecra- 
tion, as  S.  Ambrose  saith,  and  yet  it  is  not  so  really  but 
sacramentally." — p.  88. 

"And  I  express  St.  Cyprian's  mind  truly,  ....  when  I 
say,  that  the  Divinity  may  be  said  to  be  poured,  or  put 
sacra  mentally  into  the  bread  ;  .  .  .  ." — p.  88. 

RIDLEY,  replying  to  Weston,  says — "  ....  Christ  is 
offered  in  many  places  at  once  sacramentally  .  .  .  ." — p.  56. 

To  Smith  he  answers — " ....  by  the  sacramental  significa- 
tion He  is  holden  of  all  men." — p.  57. 

To  Ward  he  replies — "  ....  He  bade  them  take  His 
Body  sacramentally  in  material  bread .  .  .  ." — Ibid. 

"  I  grant  the  bread  to  be  converted  ....  by  sacramental 
converting  .  .  .  ." — Ibid. 

To  Glyn  he  says — "  ....  the  Body  of  Christ  is  present  in 
the  sacrament ;  but  yet  sacramentally  .  .  .  ." — p.  58. 

To  Tresham  his  words  were — "  Evil  men  do  eat  the  very 
true  and  natural  Body  of  Christ  sacramentally,  and  no 
further,  as  St.  Augustine  saith.  But  good  men  do  eat  the 
very  true  Body,  both  sacramentally,  and  spiritually  by 
grace." — p.  59. 

Moreover  both  forms  of  the  very  Declaration  on  Kneeling, 
which  I  am  considering  in  these  pages,  twice  speak  of  the 
"  sacramental  bread  and  wine"  not,  as  I  think,  without  a 
designed  reference  to  that  change,  and  union  with  the  Body 
and  Blood  of  Christ,  which  Consecration  effects ;  for,  else, 
the  word  sacramental  might  well  have  been  omitted  without 
affecting  the  sense  (seeing  that  no  one  ever  advocated  Adora- 
tion of  the  unconsecrated  elements)  and  this,  too,  seems  to 
be  indicated  in  the  expression  "there  bodily,"  i.e.  materially 
"  received,"  their  "substances"  still  remaining :  thus  differing 
from  the  res  sacramenti  Which  is  incapable  of  being  mate- 
rially received. — (See  p.  31  line  4.) 

These  authorities  for  the  use  of  the  words  "sacramental" 


257 

and  " sacramentally"  ought  to  content  Mr.  Goode,  and  to 
convince  him  that  "  the  fact  of  such  a  union"  was  admitted 
by  the  English  Reformers  however  much  it  may  be  "  the 
question  in  dispute"  now. 

And  when  he  demands  from  Dr.  Pusey  "  the  meaning"  of 
these  words,  he  seems  to  overlook  that  Dr.  Pusey  has  so  far 
explained  them  (p.  xvii.)  as  to  point  out  that  "  the  character 
of  the  union  ....  is  different"  from  that  of  the  "  two  per- 
fect Natures"  in  the  "  One  Person"  of  "  our  Blessed  Lord," 
and  from  "  the  two  parts  of  one  and  the  same  nature  ....  in 
the  one  person  of  each  of  us ;"  though  "  the  principle"  of 
the  union  "  is  the  same."  Thus,  in  saying  what  it  is  not,  he 
states  what  it  is,  viz.  a  union  peculiar  to  the  Sacrament,  and 
therefore  properly  called  Sacramental:  Cranmer  (See  p.  256) 
in  Scholastic  language,  defines  it  to  mean  "  without  the 
proper  form  or  quantity  of  His  body :"  to  insist  upon  more 
than  these  explanations  seems  to  me  to  be  persisting  in  a 
demand  which  can  only  be  satisfied  by  denuding  the  Sacra- 
ment of  that  Mystery  which  its  very  name  imports. 

Mr.  Goode  proceeds  to  say  (p.  20)  that : — 

"  .  ...  on  the  same  ground,  Dr.  Pusey's  work  on  the  testimony 
of  the  Fathers,  ....  is  noticed  by  the  present  Bishop  of  St.  David's 
only  as  being  one  of  those  compilations  which  are  bringing  the 
name  of  a  Catena  into  suspicion  and  disrepute,  as  equivalent  to  an 
organ  of  polemical  delusion.'  (Charge  for  1857,  p.  26.)" 

Now  it  may  be  that  the  Bishop  intended  to  include  "  Dr. 
Pusey's  work  on  the  testimony  of  the  Fathers"  in  this  con- 
demnatory notice  of  the  "  compilations  ;  "  but  certainly  his 
Lordship  does  not  say  it  is  "one  of"  them,  as  I  think  will 
appear  upon  reading  the  whole  passage  which  runs  thus : — 

"  I  believe  however  that  the  so-called  catholic  teaching,  under- 
stood as  I  have  said,  [t.  e.,  (see  Charge  p.  25)  in  the  sense  attached 
to  it  by  its  opponents]  is  no  less  repugnant  both  to  Scripture  and  to 
the  whole  stream  of  genuine  primitive  tradition,  though,  by  means 
of  compilations  which  are  bringing  the  name  of  a  catena  into  suspi- 
cion and  disrepute,  as  equivalent  to  an  engine  of  polemical  delu- 
sion, it  may  be  made  to  appear  to  have  a  great  mass  of  patristic 
evidence  in  its  favour." 

It  can  hardly  fail,  I  think,  to  strike  anyone  who  reads  this 

L    L 


258 

passage — that  Mr.  Goode's  quotation  of  it  could  never  have 
suggested  that  the  Bishop  points  to  a,  not  unimportant,  distinc- 
tion— viz.,  "Catholic  teaching"  as  "understood "respectively 
"by  its  opponents  "  and  by  its  advocates.  But  I  will  not  dwell 
on  this,  as  I  cited  the  passage  for  a  different  purpose,  viz., 
to  ascertain  whether  Mr.  Goode  rightly  quotes  it  as  a  de- 
signed condemnation  of  Dr.  Pusey's  "  Notes  "  to  his  Sermon 
on  '  the  Presence  of  Christ  in  the  Holy  Eucharist."  Now 
the  only  ground  for  so  regarding  it,  is  a  Note,  appended  by 
the  Bishop  to  the  word  "  favour,"  which  however  Mr.  Goode 
does  not  give  ;  it  is  as  follows  : 

"  A  very  large  part  of  the  passages  collected  by  Dr.  Pusey,  in  his 
Notes  on  his  Sermon,  '  The  Presence  of  Christ  in  the  Holy 
Eucharist '  would  be  deprived  of  all,  even  seeming,  relevancy  and 
argumentative  value,  by  the  simple  insertion  of  the  word  sacramental 
or  sacramentalfy." 

The  position  thus  revealed  is  at  least  a  curious  one :  Mr. 
Goode,  in  no  very  gentle  terms,  reproaches  Dr.  Pusey  for 
the  use  of  "an  ambiguous  or  incomprehensible  epithet/' 
which  he  says  must  "mislead  the  reader,"  and  which  makes 

his  work  "  in  an  argumentative  point  of  view, wholly 

useless:  "  the  Bishop  would  have  this  very  same  ft  epithet" 
employed  in  order  to  measure  the  true  value  of  passages  in  a 
book  which  Mr.  Goode  could  only  safely  allege  the  Bishop  to 
have  condemned  (so  far  as  the  Charge  is  concerned)  by  refer- 
ing  to  this  Note  which  seems  to  me  inconveniently  opposed 
to  Mr.  Goode' s  own  protest  against  "sacramental"  and 
"  sacramen  tally." 

But  it  must  not  be  overlooked  here — that  Dr.  Pusey  has 
by  anticipation  done  more  than  even  the  Bishop  proposes : 
for  he  has  given  a  long  Note,  extending  from  p.  264  to 
p.  314,  the  running  title  of  which  is  "Illustrations  used  by  the 
Fathers  imply  sacramental  change  only:"  while  at  p.  307  he 
writes  thus  explicitly  of  "  the  Fathers:" — 

" all  their  instances  harmonize  in  this  one  point — a  power 

above  nature  put  forth  in  things  of  nature  ;  and  there  is  a  real, 
sacramental  change,  whereby  what  was  before  a  mere  element  of  this 
world  becomes  sacramentally  the  Body  and  Blood  of  Christ." 

In  passing  now  from  Mr.  Goode's  notice  of  the  Bishop  of 


259 

St.  David's  Charge  I  cannot  forbear  remarking — that,  whatever 
his  Lordship  thinks  of  the  views  of  the  advocates  of  "  Catholic 
teaching,"  his  tolerant  and  charitable  spirit  contrasts  strongly 
with  the  tone  of  Mr.  Goode  towards  his  opponents  on  this 
subject  :  his  Lordship  referring  to  the  prosecution  of  Arch- 
deacon Denison,  says  (p.  25) : — 

"  After  the  closest  attention  which  I  could  give  to  the  subject,  I ... 
have  been  led  to  the  conclusion  that  the  dispute,  though  undoubtedly 
indicating  a  wide  discrepancy  of  views  and  feelings,  is  in  itself 
mainly  a  verbal  one,  which  would  either,  never  have  arisen,  or  have 
been  easily  settled,  if  there  had  been  an  earnest  desire  for  mutual 
understanding,  instead  of  a  disposition  to  widen  the  breach." 

And  again  (p.  26) : — 

"  Every  man  has  a  right,  especially  when  he  is  on  his  trial,  to  ex- 
plain his  own  opinions,  and  to  require  that  they  be  judged  according 
to  his  own  interpretation  of  them,  and  not  by  the  construction  which 
may  be  put  upon  them  by  his  adversaries.  It  may  be  that  his  ex- 
planation is  perplexed  and  obscure ;  it  may  involve  manifest 
absurdity  and  contradiction :  it  may  resolve  itself  into  mere  non- 
sense. But  these  are  things  for  which,  as  I  conceive,  the  author  is 
fairly  amenable  to  the  bar  of  literary  criticism,  not  to  a  tribunal 
which  inflicts  penalties  affecting  civil  rights.  To  sustain  a  charge  of 
unsound  doctrine,  involving  such  penal  consequences,  nothing  as  it 
appears  to  me,  ought  to  suffice,  but  the  most  direct  unequivocal 
statements,  asserting  that  which  the  Church  denies,  or  denying  that 
which  she  asserts."* 

*  I  cannot  but  subjoin  here  an  extract  from  Mr.  Fisher  (whom  I  have  before 
quoted)  as  shewing  also  the  thoughts  of  a  candid  mind  upon  this  subject :  re- 
marking upon  the  "  guarded  circumspection  in  the  use  of  terms  "  as  employed 
by  Dr.  Pusey  and,  more  particularly,  by  the  late  Archdeacon  Wilberforce,  he 
says : — 

"  Of  tbe  important  bearing  of  this  fact  upon  the  case  of  the  Archdeacon,  had 
his  case  been  actually  brought  before  the  Ecclesiastical  Courts,  tbose  wbo  are 
still  familiar  witb  the  details  of  that  of  Mr.  Gorham  will  not  need  to  be  reminded. 
It  will  be  remembered,  that  one  of  the  most  effective  arguments,  employed  by  Mr. 
Gorham's  Counsel,  was  an  argument  tbat  addressed  itself  in  an  especial  manner 
to  those  feelings  of  deference  and  respect,  -which  mankind  are  ever  disposed  to 
entertain  for  the  authority  of  time-honoured  names.  It  was  alleged,  that  opinions, 
which  could  not '  in  any  important  particular  be  distinguished  from  those  of  Mr. 
Gorham,'  had  been  propounded  and  maintained,  without  censure  or  reproach,  by 
many  eminent  and  illustrious  prelates  and  divines  who  have  adorned  the  Church, 
from  the  time  when  the  Articles  were  first  established.  Now  the  question  at 
once  arises — might  not  this  self-same  argument  have  been  used,  and  with  equal 
effect,  had  the  occasion  required  it,  in  behalf  of  Archdeacon  Wilberforce  ?  We 
believe  most  assuredly  that  it  might  have  been  thus  used ;  and,  if  so,  what  must 
in  all  fairness  have  been  the  issue  of  the  proceedings  brought  against  him  ?  We 
are  told  of  Jewel,  Usher,  Jeremy  Taylor,  Whitgift,  Pearson,  Carlton,  and 


260 

The  next  point  to  which  Mr.  Goode  calls  attention 
(pp.  21  to  24)  is  Dr.  Pusey's  "  discussion  of  the  meaning  of 
the  Advertisement  at  the  end  of  the  first  Book  of  Homilies, 
to  which"  he,  Mr.  Goode,  had  "already  directed  the  atten- 
tion of  the  reader"  in  his  "  Work  on  the  Eucharist,  pp.  40 — 
47."  I  have  examined  the  subject  at  some  length  in  a  former 
part  of  this  Appendix  (See  pp.  152 — 171)  where  will  be 
found,  what  seem  to  me,  adequate  reasons  for  dissenting 
from  Mr.  Goode's  conclusions — that  the  Advertisement  was 
"  opposed  to  the  Doctrine  established  by  authoritative  For- 
mularies subsequently  published,"  (p.  21) :  that  it  cannot 
have  the  slightest  force  or  value  "  except  "  That  it  may  be 
some  indication  of  the  views  entertained  at  the  time  by  the 
person  who  inserted  it  .  ..."  (p.  23) :  and  that  it  "  is  a  mat- 


Prideaux,  as  having  held  views,  upon  the  subject  of  Baptism,  which  are  undis- 
tinguishable  from  those  of  Mr.  Gorham,     Certainly  it  would  not  be  difficult  to 
cite  a  similar  array  of  names  in  support  even  of  the  more  extreme  opinions  of  the 
late  Archdeacon,  provided  those  opinions  are  taken  according  to  the  letter  of  his 
published  works.     What,  for  instance,  shall  we  say  of  such  divines  as  Overall, 
Cosin,  Thorndyke,  Sheldon,  Bramhall,  Jackson,  and  Morley — all  men  of  mark 
and  eminence  in  the  Church,  and  some  of  them  Bishops  and  Archbishops  ?     Nay, 
what  shall  we  say  of  the  notorious  Dr.  Gunning  himself ;  the  very  man  at  whose 
instigation  the  rubrical  alteration,  we  are  now  considering,  is  known  to  have 
been  made  ?*     These  divines  may  not  have  written  upon  the  subject  of  the  Eu- 
charist at  the  same  length,  or  with  the  same  systematic  precision,  as  the  author 
of  the  book  we  are  now  considering;  but  they  have  all,  and  especially  the  last — 
the  chief  actor  be  it  remembered,  in  the  revision  of  1662 — given  utterance  to 
sentiments  of  which  it  may  without  hesitation  be  affirmed,  that  they  cannot,  '  in 
any  important  particular  be  distinguished '  from  those  of  Mr.  Wilberforce.     And 
when,  moreover,  all  the  other  circumstances  of  the  case  are  duly  considered : 
when  we  call  to  mind  the  special  reason — namely,  a  compromise  with  Rome — 
for  which  the  Rubric  now  under  consideration  was  omitted  from  the  Liturgy  of 
Elizabeth,  together  with  the  strong  language  which  has  all  along  been  allowed  to 
exist  in  certain  portions  of  our  present  Communion  Service  :  when  we  consider 
the  Scholastic  phraseology  introduced,  as  we  have  already  seen,  into  the  Church 
Catechism  by  Bishop  Overall ;  and  the  final  removal,  even  from  the  Articles,  of 
the  one  only  clause  contained  in  them,  which  was  condemnatory,  in  express 
terms  of  the  '  Real  Presence  :'  we  see  not  with  what  appearance  of  equity,  or 
even  common  fairness,  the  late  Archdeacon  of  the  East  Riding  could,  had  his 
case  been  actually  brought  before  any  of  our  Ecclesiastical  Courts,  have  been  de- 
prived of  the  honours  of  his  Archdeaconry;    Mr.  Gorham  continuing  all  the 
while    unmolested    in    the    vicarical    emoluments    of   Bfampford    Speke." — 
pp.  388—391. 

*  In  a  note  Mr.  Fisher  gives  the  passage  which  I  had  quoted  from  Burnet  at  p.  70,  remark- 
ing  upon  it,  "And  yet  it  was  to  men  capable  of  such  extravagancies  as  this,  that  the  final  re- 
vision of  our  National  Service-book  was  entrusted  ;  and  we.  forsooth,  are  content  to  accept 
their  handy -work  as  the  expression  of  our  own  religious  belief." 


261 

ter  of  secondary   importance "    to   consider   "  whether   the 

phrase  used  in  this  Advertisement was  used  to  express 

the  doctrine  of  the  real  presence  in  the  bread  and  wine,  their 
substance  remaining,  .  .  .  ."  (p.  23). 

My  only  reason  for  now  adverting  to  this  part  of  the 
"Supplement"  is  Mr.  Goode's  complaint  that  "Dr.  Pusey, 
according  to  his  usual  custom  of  ignoring  the  strongest  points 
of  his  opponents'  argument,  ....  takes  no  notice  "  (p.  22)  of 
his  citation  of  Cranmer's  reply  to  Gardiner  who  had  said 
(See  p.  21)  that  the  expression  "under  the  form  of  bread 
and  wine "  occurred  "  in  the  distribution  of  the  Holy 
Communion." 

Why  Dr.  Pusey  did  not  notice  this  I  do  not  know ;  he  may 
have  thought  it,  as  certainly  it  seems  to  me  to  be,  one  of  the 
weakest  of  Mr.  Goode's  arguments ;  for  how  the  fact — that 
the  phrase  did  not  occur  in  so  improbable  a  place  as  the 
Communion  Office  of  1549 — proves  its  lack  of  authority 
where  it  stands  in  the  First  Book  of  Homilies,  is  a  position 
which  I  should  have  thought  it  impossible  to  maintain  with- 
out very  different  evidence  from  what  Mr.  Goode  has  pro- 
duced or,  indeed,  from  any  which  seems  to  exist.  Mr. 
Goode,  however,  resorts  to  a  singular  plea  in  order  to  main- 
tain what  he  regards  as  Cranmer's  fatal  answer  to  any  Doc- 
trinal claim  of  the  Advertisement :  he  says  : — 

**  If  the  form  of  words  in  question  occurred  in  any  formulary  of 
authority  in  our  Church,  that  was  equivalent  to  their  being  in  the 
*  Communion  Book. ' " 

They  did  occur,  however,  as  Mr.  Goode  says,  (p.  22)  "  at 
the  end  of  an  authoritative  Formulary  ;  "  that  "  Formulary" 
(to  use  Mr.  Goode's  nomenclature) :  being  the  first  Book  of 
Homilies:  but  suppose,  for  argument's  sake,  they  had 
"occurred"  in  either  of  the  Homilies  themselves ;  would  Mr. 
Goode  really  consent  to  place  these  c<  Sermons  "  on  the  same 
footing  as  the  Communion  Office  ?  If  so,  is  he  prepared  to 
accept  all  the  consequences  of  such  a  theory,  and  to  acquiesce 
in  all  the  statements  of  these  Homilies  as  readily  as  he  is 
bound  to  admit  the  teaching  of  the  Communion  Office  itself? 
It  may  be  so,  but  I  much  doubt  it.  Yet,  if  not,  of  what 


262 

use  is  his  argument  at  all  ?  But  even  if  he  is  willing  to  be 
bound  by  the  legitimate  force  of  his  own  proposition,  it  by 
no  means  follows  that,  in  that  proposition,  he  represents  the 
mind  of  Archbishop  Cranmer  or  the  Convocation  :  surely  it 
cannot  be  seriously  maintained  that  they  ever  contemplated 
such  an  identification  of  the  Homilies  and  the  Communion 
Office.  It  was  a  most  legitimate  and  useful  thing  to  propose 
to  instruct  the  people  in  the  true  meaning  of  a  current 
Theological  term,  by  issuing  a  Homily  in  which  it  should  be 
explained :  it  would  have  been,  to  say  the  least,  a  most 
doubtful  proceeding  to  employ  in  a  public  Liturgy  (where 
explanation  was  impossible) — that  Liturgy,  too,  being  a  re- 
formed one — an  expression  which  was  well  known  to  be  used  in 
support  of  different  Doctrines  by  different  classes  of  religion- 
ists ;  one  of  these  Doctrines  being  that  very  one  of  Transub- 
stantiation  which  the  Church  of  England  had  ceased  to  hold 
when  the  Prayer  Book  of  154-9  was  issued.  It  is  easy  there- 
fore to  understand  why  Cranmer  repelled  in  somewhat  strong 
terms  Gardiner's  assertion,  that  the  phrase  was  used  "in  the 
distribution  of  the  Holy  Communion ;"  but  it  seems  to  me 
most  illogical  to  infer  from  this  circumstance,  that  "  Cranmer 
evidently  repudiates  the  phrase  altogether  as  one  used  by  the 
Church  of  England/'  I  am  content  to  set  against  Mr. 
Goode's  inference  the  facts — that  at  this  very  time  (1551) 
Cranmer's  Catechism  of  1 548  was  still  in  circulation  :  that,  in 
that  Catechism,  Cranmer  had  employed  this  precise  phrase 
(See  p.  155) :  that,  in  his  "  Answer  to  Gardiner,"  (1551)  he 
used  the  very  phrase  (See  p.  179  and  Note)  :  that  in  this  same 
Book  he  adhered  to  the  Catechism*  (See  p.  159):  and  that  there 
is  nothing  whatever  to  show  that  he  ever  abandoned  it ; 
whereas,  on  the  contrary,  all  that  we  know  goes  to  prove  that 
he  maintained  it  to  the  end  of  his  life. 

But  Mr.  Goode,  anxious  to  deprive  the  Advertisement  of 
any  possible  weight,  yet  seemingly  embarrassed  by  the  con- 

*  ......  this  document  is,  as  has  already  been  shown,  authenticated  by  Cran- 
mer himself,  no  less  decisively  at  the  close  of  the  year  1551 — when,  according  to 
Burnett,  the  SECOND  Book  of  Edw.  had  already  been  drawn  up— than  at  the  time 
of  its  first  publication."— Fisher  Lit.  Pur.  p.  235.  The  Italics  and  Capitals  are 
Mr.  Fisher's. 


263 

sideration,  that  Archbishop  Cranmer's  opinions  will  naturally 
be  regarded  as  a  fair  test  of  its  meaning,  further  says  (p.  23) : — 

"  And  the  question  as  to  what  Cranmer's  precise  views  were  in 
1547  will  not  determine  the  meaning  of  this  Advertisement,  for  the 
authorship  of  the  Advertisement  is  not  known  ;  and  such  a  notice, 
having  no  legal  authority,  might  be  inserted  by  any  one  to  whom 
the  office  of  editing  the  first  book  of  homilies  was  entrusted  ;  and 
certainly  few  among  the  authorities  of  our  Church  had  then  given  up 
the  doctrine  of  Transubstantiation.  It  is  clear,  as  I  have  just  shewn, 
that  Cranmer  altogether  repudiated  the  phrase  occurring  in  it  as 
one  to  which  our  Church  was  committed,  and  shows  by  his  language, 
in  several  places  respecting  it,  what  he  understood  by  it.  And 
therefore  it  cannot  be  supposed  that  he  inserted  it." 

Now  we  have  just  seen  that  the  Archbishop  did  make  the 
phrase  his  own,  and,  in  a  sense,  the  Church  of  England's  too, 
by  using  it  in  his  Catechism  of  1548  :  yet  he  certainly  never 
" repudiated"  that  Catechism,  but  distinctly  upheld  it  (See 
p.  159),  in  the  very  "Answer  to  Gardiner/'  wherein,  according 
to  Mr.  Goode,  he  "  altogether  repudiated "  it  for  "  our 
Church ;"  we  are  driven  then  to  this  conclusion — that  Cran- 
mer held  and  taught  a  Doctrinal  phrase  which  he  well  knew 
and  openly  declared  to  be  opposed  to  the  mind  of  that  Church 
over  which  he  was  Archbishop  ;  but,  as  for  my  own  part  I 
cannot  believe  that  the  Primate  would  thus  dishonestly  in- 
struct the  "  children  and  yong  people  "  of  England  so,  the 
merest  charity  obliges  to  the  persuasion,  that  Cranmer  did 
not  consider  the  phrase  to  be  disallowed  in  the  Church  of 
England,  even  though  he  might  not  think  her  formally  "  com- 
mitted "  to  it :  if  so,  it  may  most  fairly  and  reasonably  "  be 
supposed  that  he  inserted  it." 

But,  says  Mr.  Goode,  "few  among  the  authorities  of  our 
Church  had  then  given  up  the  doctrine  of  Transubstantiation  :" 
yet  certainly  Cranmer  had  ;  and  therefore  he  was  not  very 
likely  to  entrust  the  t(  editing"  of  the  book  to  any  one  by 
whom,  perchance,  the  phrase  in  question  might  be  introduced 
with  the  design  of  supporting  that  Doctrine.  It  is,  however, 
a  mere  assumption  on  Mr.  Goode's  part,  that  the  Archbishop 
employed  any  one  to  Edit  the  Homilies  :  certainly  there  is  no 
known  proof  that  he  did,  though  there  is  sufficient  reason  for 


264 

thinking  that  he  did  not :  yet,  if  he  did,  is  it  in  the  least  likely 
that  he  neglected  to  look  at  the  Book  when  it  came  out  of 
the  printer's  hands  ?  In  that  case  could  the  Advertisement,  or 
so  important  an  alteration  of  it,  have  escaped  his  notice  ?  On 
the  supposition,  indeed,  that  the  4Book  was  Edited  by  another, 
it  is  not  impossible  that  a  sentence  of  seven  words  might  have 
been  overlooked  by  the  Archbishop,  if  inserted  in  the  body 
of  the  Homilies  ;  but  assuredly  it  is  most  improbable  that 
he  could  have  overlooked  it  in  so  conspicuous  a  place  as  it 
occupies  at  the  end  of  the  Book.  As  to  Mr.  Goode's 
assertion,  that  "  the  authorship  of  the  Advertisement  is 
not  known,"  it  no  more  detracts  from  its  value  than  does  the 
like  ignorance  diminish  the  worth  of  some  of  the  Homilies 
themselves ;  and  when  (to  account  for,  what  he  considers, 
its  unwarranted  insertion)  he  says  that  it  had  "  no  legal 
authority,"  it  seems  to  me  enough  to  say — that  I  believe  he 
would  fail  to  produce  any  "  legal  authority"  for  the  Homilies 
themselves  which  does  not  equally  apply  to  this  Advertise- 
ment. 

I  suppose  Mr.  Goode  would  allow  that  the  Doctrine 
of  Transubstantiation  was  authoritatively  abolished  in  the 
Church  of  England  when  the  2nd  Book  of  Homilies  was 
published  in  Elizabeth's  reign  :  yet  Bishop  Jewel,  while 
denying  Harding's  doctrine  of  a  carnal  Presence,  uses  the 
phrase  in  question  (See  p.  249)  without  any  indication  that 
he  objected  to  it  except  in  the  sense  which  Harding  put 
upon  the  word  "forms"  viz.  accidents  without  substance;  or 
"  fantasies"  as  Jewel  calls  them  :*  if,  then,  as  there  is  good 

*  Jewel's  language  to  Harding  in  "  The  Defence  of  the  Apology"  shews 
more  clearly  his  meaning  in  the  passage  referred  to  above  ;  thus  he  says : — 

"  But  ye  tell  us  further  of  yourself,  that  the  body  of  Christ  in  the  Sacrament 
....  being  (as  you  say)  a  very  natural  body,  yet  hath  neither  likeness  nor  shape 
of  a  body." -p.  258  Ed.  P.  8. 

Again,  quoting  St.  Augustine,  "  Hereof  we  may  conclude  that  the  body  of 
Christ,  which  you  have  imagined  to  be  contained  grossly  and  carnally  in  the 
sacrament,  forasmuch  as  by  your  own  confession  it  hath  neither  quality,  nor 
quantity,  nor  form,  nor  place,  nor  proportion  of  body,  therefore  by  St.  Augus- 
tine's doctrine  it  is  no  body."—  Ibid.  p.  259. 

So,  too,  referring  to  Harding's  distinction  of  "form"  and  "substance,"  he 
asks—"  But  now,  what  if  all  this  great  imagined  difference  be  no  difference  ? 
What  if  these  two  words  '  form'  and  '  substance,'  as  they  be  used  by  Fulgentius. 
be  all  one?"—  Ibid.  p.  261. 


265 

reason  to  believe,  Jewel  edited  the  Second  Book  of  Homilies, 
the  natural  conclusion  seems  to  be  that  he  could  not  have 
regarded  the  terms  of  the  Advertisement  as  being  either  un- 
authorized by,  or  repugnant  to  the  mind  of,  the  Church  of 
England:*  else,  though  he  might  not  have  felt  at  liberty  to 
omit  it,  he  would  never  have  recognized  it  so  distinctly  in  the 
Title  of  the  2nd  Book  which  declares  that  the  "  Homilies" 
therein  contained  were  "  of  such  matters  as  were  promised 

Then,  referring  to  SS.  Athanasius,  Chrysostom,  Augustine,  and  Leo,  he 
further  enquires — "  Wherefore  say  you  of  your  own  head,  that  '  form'  and 
*  substance'  be  so  contrary,  seeing  the  Catholic  fathers  say  they  be  both  one  ? " 
— Ibid.  p.  262.  See  also  his  remarks  on  "forma'  and  "natiira,"  pp.  512-13. 

*  Since  writing  the  above  I  have  read  for  the  first  time  Mr.  Griffiths'  copious 
and  careful  Preface  to  the  new  Oxford  Edition  (1859)  of  the  Homilies:  his 
"collation  of"  the  published  editions  with  what  he  seems  reasonably  to  regard 
as  "the  original  form"  of  the  Homily  of  the  Resurrection  leads  him  to  the  fol- 
lowing remarks  : — *'  ....  the  omission  of  the  words  '  in  form  of  bread'  in  p. 
433,  1.  22,  was  doubtless  intentional,  and  ought  to  be  borne  in  mind,  when  at- 
tempts are  made  to  found  an  argument  for  the  presence  of  Christ  in  the  con- 
secrated elements  upon  the  retention  of  the  words  '  under  the  form  of  bread  and 
wine'  in  the  promise  of  more  Homilies  which  closes  the  First  Book :  for  its  im- 
port is  shewn  by  another  omission,  *  now  received  in  this  holy  Sacrament,'  in  p. 
435,  1.  18."— p.  xxxiv. 

Now  here  it  is  important  first  of  all  to  observe  that  Mr.  Griffiths  (who  has  very 
carefully  investigated  the  subjects  of  Authorship,  Editorship,  and  Editions  of  both 
Books  of  Homilies)  never  attempts  to  question  (as  Mr.Goode  does)  the  genuineness  or 
authority  of  this  Advertisement :  speaking  of  the  First  Book  of  Homilies  he 
does  not  hesitate  to  say  (p.  xiv.)  that  "  Cranmer  intended  from  the  first  that 
more  should  follow,  and  put  a  promise  to  that  effect  at  the  end  of  the  Book 
together  with  a  list  of  subjects  on  which  they  should  treat."  With  regard,  how- 
ever to  the  omission  of  the  phrase  "in  form  of  bread"  (which  Mr.  Griffiths 
seems  to  consider  as  now  lessening  the  argumentative  value  of  the  expression — 
"  under  the  form  of  bread  and  wine)  it  may  fairly  be  supposed  that  it  was  con- 
sidered best  to  avoid  the  incidental  use,  in  this  Homily,  of  a  controverted  term 
relating  to  a  subject  promised  to  be  dealt  with  in  another  Homily  treating  ex- 
clusively of  the  Sacrament  of  the  Body  and  Blood  of  Christ.  As  to  the  second 
change  in  the  same  Homily,  viz.  the  omission  of  the  words  which  I  bracket  in  the 
following  sentence—"  Yea,  how  dare  we  be  so  bold  to  renounce  the  presence  of 
the  Father,  the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Ghost  [now  received  in  this  holy  Sacrament], 
(for,  where  one  is,  there  is  God  all  whole  in  Majesty  together  with  all  his 
power,  wisdom,  and  goodness,) "  &c. — I  cannot  see  how  it  sustains  Mr.  Griffiths' 
opinion  as  to  the  former  by  shewing,  as  he  says,  the  "  import"  of  the  other 
omitted  sentence :  rather  it  seems  to  me  to  have  been  left  out  as  having  been 
already  better  expressed  just  before  (p.  433,  1.  28,  &c.)  in  the  sentence,  "  Thou 
hast  received  his  body  to  have  within  thee,  the  Father,  the  Son,  and  the  Holy 
Ghost  for  to  dwell  with  thee,  to  endow  thee  with  grace,  to  strength  thee  against 
thy  enemies,  and  to  comfort  thee  with  their  presence."  Indeed  Mr.  Griffiths' 
conjecture,  if  correct,  would  seem  to  sustain  the  authority  and  fitness  of  the 
terms  "  under  the  form  of  bread  and  wine"  as  being  the  equivalent  of  the  phrase 
"  in  this  holy  Sacrament;"  for  I  suppose  the  objectors  to  the  Advertisement  will 
not  deny  that  the  Church  of  England  might  sanction  such  a  formula  as  this — 
"  Of  the  due  receiving  of  His  Body  and  Blood  in  the  Holy  Sacrament." 

It  is  convenient,  and  may  be  useful  (as  bearing  upon  what  has  been  said  at 


M    M 


266 

and  intituled  in  the  former  part  of  Homilies."     It  is  most  im- 
probable, too,  that  the  History  and  Authorship  of  the  Adver- 
tisement had  been  forgotten  in  sixteen  years  ;  for  no  longer 
time  had  elapsed  between  the  1st  Edition  of  the  First  Book 
in  1547,  and  the  1st  Edition  of  the  Second  Book  published  in 
1563  under  the  sanction  of  the  Queen  and  Convocation;  yet 
in  that  period  no  less  than  twenty  Editions  of  the  First  Book 
are    known    to   have   been  published  ;  viz.  ffteen  in   King 
Edward's  reign,   (between   1547  and  1552,)  and  Jive  under 
Queen  Elizabeth  (between  1559  and  1563)  prior  to  the  is- 
suing of  the  Second   Book.*     The  Title  of  the    1st  Eliza- 
bethan  Edition   informs   us  also  that    they   were  "  by  her 
Grace's  aduyse  perused  and  ouersene ;"  and,  whether  Parker 
or   Cox  or  Jewel  performed  this  office,  the    Advertisement 
could  not  have  been    unnoticed   by  either   of  them  :  what 
Bishop   Cox  thought  of  its  authority   we  know   from   the 
Preface  which  Strype  tells  us  he  prepared  for  the   Second 
Book ;  for  he  there  says  that  "  whereas  in  the  said  [First] 
Book  of  Homilies  mention  was  made  of  other  Homilies  con- 
cerning certain  necessary  points  of  religion   that  were  in- 
tended to  be  annexed  to  these,  her  Highness  hath  caused  the 
same  to  be  faithfully  drawn"  &c. — (Annals  c.  xxx.)      More- 
over it  cannot  reasonably  be  doubted  that  the  sense  in  which 
Cranmer  used  the  word  "  form,"  in  the  Advertisement,  was 


p.  209,  relative  to  Art.  xxix.)  to  notice  here  an  alteration  which  Mr.  Griffiths 
says  (Pref.,  p.  xxi.  and  Note  ii.,  p.  445)  was  also  made  in  "  The  first  part  of  the 
Sermon  concerning  the  Sacrament."  He  states  that  in  "  the  original  form  " 
above  mentioned  (which  he  believes  to  be  the  copy  presented  to  Elizabeth  of  the 
2nd  Book  of  Homilies,  as  settled  in  the  Convocation  of  1563)  the  following 
bracketed  passage  from  St.  Augustine  occurs,  though  it  was  omitted  in  the  first 
and  in  all  the  subsequent  published  Editions  :  — "  For  the  unbelievers  and  faith- 
less cannot  feed  upon  that  precious  Body  :  whereas  the  faithful  have  their  life, 
their  abiding  in  him  ;  their  union,  and  as  it  were  their  incorporation,  with  him. 
[Whereof  thus  saith  St.  Augustine ;  '  lie  which  is  at  discord  with  Christ  doth 
neither  eat  his  flesh  nor  drink  his  blood,  although  he  receive  to  the  judgment  of 
his  destruction,  daily  the  outward  sacrament  of  so  great  a  thing.']  Wherefore 
let  us,"  etc.  In  the'  margin  was  the  reference  "  Lib.  4,  de  Trinit.,"  which  was 
also  omitted.  It  will  be  recollected  that  Article  xxix.  was  suppressed,  although 
it  had  been  passed  in  the  same  Convocation  of  1563.  The  Article  was  restored 
in  1571,  but  not  so  this  omitted  passage  of  the  Homily.  Perchance  this  may 
have  influenced  Abp.  Parker  in  removing,  as  is  said,  (see  p.  209)  the  reference 
to  St.  Augustine  from  the  margin  of  the  Article. 

*  See  Mr.  Griffiths'  Catalogue,     pp.  1.  to  Ix. 


267 

well  known  at  the  time  the  Second  Book  was  prepared ;  and, 
too,  that  that  sense  was  none  other  than  the  anti-roman  one, 
already  quoted  from  Jewel,  viz.  substance  and  not  merely 
accidents. 

I  have  already  drawn  attention  (pp.  162-165)  to  a  point 
which  seems  not  to  have  been  sufficiently  regarded  by  any  in 
considering  the  notice  of  the  promised  Homily  and  its  sup- 
posed production  in  the  Second  Book  under  the  title  "  Of 
the  worthy  receiving  and  reverent  esteeming  of  the  Sacra- 
ment of  the  Body  and  Blood  of  Christ."  The  argument 
there  was  founded  upon  a  probable  conclusion  (drawn  from 
Bp.  Burnet)*  that  this  Homily  was  due  to  Cranmer' s  own 
fulfilment  of  the  promise  ;  though  it  was  also  shewn  what 
would  be  the  effect  of  the  discovery  that  the  Hoinily  was  cer- 
tainly not  prepared  by  Cranmer.  It  is  in  place  here  to  observe 
that  (assuming  the  Homily  to  have  been  compiled  or  revised 
by  Jeivel]  what  was  there  suggested  (p.  165)  as  a  reason 
which  might  have  induced  the  Archbishop  not  to  use  in  the 
Homily  the  words  "  under  the  form  of  bread  and  wine"  ap- 
plies equally  to  the  Bishop ;  for  Jewel  at  that  time  may  have 
entertained  the  like  fear  of  its  being  popularly  accepted  in 
Harding' s  sense,  which  Cranmer  in  his  day  probably  had  of 
its  being  interpreted  by  Gardiner's  definition.  Yet  such  an 
act  of  prudent  consideration  no  more  proves  of  Jewel  than  of 
Cranmer — that  he  objected  to  it  as  being  at  variance  with 
the  teaching  of  the  Church  of  England — on  the  contrary  it 
seems  to  me  that  a  further  proof  of  his  acceptance  of  it,  in 
the  sense  in  which  he  must  have  known  that  Cranmer  em- 
ployed it,  is  to  be  found  in  "  The  twenty-sixth  Article"  of 
his  controversy  with  Harding,  against  whom  Jewel  maintains 
that  no  proof  can  be  found  in  the  first  six  centuries  "  that 
the  Sacrament  is  a  sign  or  token  of  the  body  of  Christ,  that 
lieth  hidden  underneath  it." 

Harding  had  said  : — 

"  That  the  outward  form  of  bread,  which  is  properly  the  sacra- 

*  **....  there  -were  two  books  of  Homilies  prepared;  the  first  was  pub- 
lished in  King  Edward's  time;  the  second  was  not  finished  till  about  the  time  of 
his  death;  so  it  was  not  published  before  Queen  Elizabeth's  time." — Expos,  of 
Art.  xxxv. 


268 

ment,  is  the  sign  of  the  body  of  Christ,  we  confess,  yea,  of  that 
body  which  is  covertly  in  or  under  the  same,  which  St.  Augustine 
calleth  carnem  Domini  forma  panis  opertam,  '  the  flesh  of  the  Lord 
covered  with  the  form  of  bread:'  " 

To  this  Jewel  answers  thus  : — 

"  These  words  of  St.  Augustine  are  alleged  and  answered  before.* 
That  holy  learned  father  never  said,  neither  that  the  forms  and  ac- 
cidents be  the  sacrament,  nor  that  Christ's  body  is  really  hidden 
under  the  same  ;  nor  in  this  place  speaketh  any  one  word  at  all  of 
any  accidents. 

"  But  the  words  wherein  M.  Harding  is  deceived  are  these,  forma 
panis  ;  which  words  signify  not  the  outward  forms  and  accidents,  as 
he  untruly  expoundeth  them,  but  the  very  kind  and  substance  of 
the  bread.  So  St.  Paul  saith  :  .  .  .  .  Christ,  being  in  the  form  (or 
nature)  of  God,  took  upon  him  the  form  (or  nature)  of  a  servant,' 
....  I  think  M.  Harding  will  not  say,  Christ  took  a  body  of  forms 
and  accidents,  that  he  might  be  conversant  and  live  with  men  .... 

"And  as  touching  the  other  word  operta,  'covered,'  St.  Augus- 
tine meaneth  not  thereby  that  Christ's  body  is  really  contained  and 
covered  under  the  said  form  or  kind  of  bread,  but  only  that  it  is 
there  AS  IN  A  SACRAMENT  OR  IN  A  MYSTERY.  In  this  sense  St. 
Augustine  saith  :  .  .  .  '  The  grace  of  God  lay  hidden  covered  in  the 
old  Testament.'  And  again :  .  .  .  '  The  new  Testament  was  hidden 
in  the  old,  that  is  to  say,  it  was  secretly  signified  in  the  old/  " — pp. 
796-7. 

*  That  is  at  pp.  618  and  619  of  the  same  Volume  :  I  hare  given  two  short 
extracts  from  the  answer  at  p.  247  :  but  it  may  he  useful  to  n<ake  a  further 
quotation  here:  thus  Jewel  says—"  In  the  second  word,  operta,  which  signifieth 
*  covered,'  M.  Harding  wittingly  dissembleth  his  own  learning,  and  would  seem 
not  to  know  the  manner  and  nature  of  all  sacraments ;  which  is  to  offer  one 
thing  outwardly  unto  our  senses,  and  another  inwardly  to  our  mind.  Hereof 
there  is  sufficiently  spoken  before,  in  the  second  and  eighth  division  of  this 
article."  f— p.  618. 

"  Thus  the  Sacrament  of  Christ's  flesh,  which,  according  to  the  doctrine  of 
St.  Augustine,  beareth  the  name  of  the  thing  that  it  signifieth,  is  called  Christ's 
flesh,  invisible,  spiritual,  and  only  to  be  conceived  by  understanding.  For  the 
whole  work  hereof  pertaineth,  not  unto  the  mouth  or  teeth,  as  St.  Augustine 
saith  ,  but  only  to  faith  and  spirit." — p.  619. 

t  Viz.  at  pp.  594,  595,  604 — e.  g.  ' '  These  things  considered,  it  may  soon  appear  how  faith- 
fully and  how  well  to  his  purpose  M.  Harding  allegeth  this  place  of  St.  Augustine :  Hoc  est, 
quod  dicimus,  etc:  (De  Consecr.  Dist.  2.)  '  This  is  it  that  we  say,  which  we  go  about  by  all 
means  to  prove,  that  the  sacrifice  of  the  Church  is  made  of  two  things,  and  standeth 
of  two  things;  of  the  visible  kind  (or  nature)  of  the  elements,  and  of  the  invisible  flesh 
and  blood  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ;  of  the  Sacrament,  the  outward  holy  sign,  and  the 
thing  of  the  sacrament,  which  is  the  body  of  Christ."  Hereof  M.  Harding  gaihereth  that 
the  body  of  Christ  lieth  hidden  under  the  accidents.  St.  Augustine's  words  be  true;  but 
M  Harding  with  his  guesses  is  much  deceived.  For  of  this  word  specie  he  concludeth  that 
the  substance  of  bread  is  gone,  and  nothing  remaining  but  only  accidents  ;  and  of  this  word 
invisibilihe  gathereth  that  Christ's  body  is  there  really  inclosed.  And  so  he  maketh  a  com- 
mentary far  beside  his  text."— p.  594. 

"  Neither  does  this  word  '  visible'  import  any  such  external  form  as  is  here  imagined ;  but 
only  excludeth  the  body  of  Christ,  which  is  in  heaven,  invisible  to  our  bodily  eyes,  and 
visible  only  to  the  eyes  of  our  faith." — p.  595. 

For  the  passage  at  p,  604  see  p.  247. 


269 

But  then,  lest  this  illustration  should  be  thought  to  prove 
too  much,  it  is  well  to  notice  another  illustration  which  Jewel 
gives,  together  with  it,  at  p.  618  : — 

"  But  as  St.  Augustine  saith  here,  Christ's  body  is  hidden  under 
the  form  or  kind  of  bread  ;  even  so  he  saith  :  .  .  .  '  The  grace  of 
God  lay  hidden  in  the  old  testament.'  Even  so  Gregory  saith  :  .  .  . 
4  As  the  chaff  hideth  the  corn,  so  the  letter  hideth  the  Spirit.'  Even 
so  again  St.  Augustine  saith  :  .  .  .  *  The  new  Testament  was  hidden 
in  the  old/  But  he  expoundeth  himself:  ...  *  It  was  hidden,  that 
is  to  say,  it  was  secretly  signified.'  And  thus  by  St.  Augustine's 
own  words  and  exposition,  we  may  likewise  say  :  .  .  .  '  Christ's  flesh 
is  privily  hidden,  that  is  to  say,'  as  St.  Augustine  expoundeth  it,  *  it 
is  privily  signified.' '' 

Now  Jewel's  quotation  from  St.  Gregory  in  this  passage 
removes  a  difficulty  which  it  and  the  former  passage  might 
else  present,  and  so  helps  us  to  see  that  he  might  (as  I  have 
argued  that  he  did)  accept  the  phrase  "  under  the  form  of 
bread  and  wine,"  allowing  a  true  yet  denying  a  physical 
Presence  therein  and  therewith  of  the  Body  and  Blood  of 
Christ.  For  it  is  clear  that  the  "corn"  hidden  under  the 
"  chaff"  is  a  material  thing;  but,  as  he  himself  says,*  the 
like  was  not  true  of  "the  new  Testament"  which  "was 
hidden  in  the  old;"  why  then  (besides  another)  did  he  use 
two  illustrations  which  are  thus  at  variance  ?  I  can  imagine 
no  other  reason  than  that  he  wished  to  guard  himself  from 
seeming  to  unsay  what  (as  Compiler  or  Editor)  he  had  said 
two  years  before  on  behalf  of  the  Church  of  England,  in 
the  Homily  of  "  The  Worthy  Receiving,"  &c.,  viz.  that  the 
Sacrament  of  the  Altar  was  "  no  untrue,  figure  of  a  thing  ab- 
sent;" and  further  that  (while  by  one  illustration,  from  the  two 
Testaments,  he  sustained  his  resistance  to  a  Carnal  Presence 
and  by  a  second,  from  the  chaff  and  corn,  pointed  to  his 

*  "  Here,  lest  M.  Harding  should  take  these  words  strictly  and  grossly,  as 
he  doth  the  rest,  and  say,  the  new  testament  indeed  and  really  was  covered  in 
the  old,  St.  Augustine  himself  hath  prevented  him,  and  opened  his  own  meaning 
in  this  wise,  as  it  is  said  before  :  Occultabatur,  .  .  .  id  eat,  occulte  siynificabatur, 
[De  Baptism,  contr.  Donatist.  Lib.  1.  c.  xv.  24.]  :  '  it  was  covered,  that  is  to  say, 
it  was  secretly  signified.'  By  which  exposition,  being  St.  Augustine's,  M. 
Harding  might  have  learned  likewise  to  expound  these  words :  caro  operta 
forma  panis,  id  est,  occulte  significata :  '  The  flesh  covered  in  the  form  or  sub- 
stance of  bread,  that  is  to  say,  privily  signified  in  the  form  or  substance  of 
bread.'  "—p.  797. 


270 

belief  in  a  Substantial  Presence)  in  comparing  this  Sacra- 
ment with  "  the  grace  of  God  [which]  lay  hidden  in  the  old 
testament"  and  with  "  the  letter  [which]  hideth  the  Spirit," 
he  used  a  third  analogy,  which,  varying  from  yet  combining 
the  other  two,  supported  a  Sacramental  but  withal  a  True 
and  Real  Presence. 

There  is,  however,  another  reason — and  a  very  forcible  one 
— for  believing  that  neither  Cranmer  nor  Jewel  nor  their  con- 
temporary Authorities  in  the  Church  of  England  repudiated 
the  phrase  in  question  ;  for  it  occurs  in  one  of  the  "  Prayers 
of  the  Passion"  in  the  first  Elizabethan  Edition  (1559)  of 
Hen.  Sth's  reformed  Primer  of  1545 :  the  Prayer  is  as  fol- 
lows : — 

"Our  [1545.  O,  Jesu  Christ,  which]  Saviour  and  Redeemer,  Jesu 
Christ,  which  in  thy  last  supper  with  thine  Apostles  didst  deliver 
[1545.  consecrate]  thy  blessed  body  and  blood  under  tlie  form  of 
bread  and  wine  ;  Grant  us,  we  beseech  thee,  ever  stedfastly  to  be- 
lieve, and  kindly  to  acknowledge,  thy  infinite  and  almighty  power, 
thy  incomprehensible  love  towards  us,  and  that  we  may  alway  wor- 
thily receive  the  same  blessed  Sacrament,  according  to  thy  holy 
ordinance,  that  thereby  we  may  obtain  increase  of  all  goodness 
[1545.  godlynes]  in  unity  of  spirit  with  thee  our  head,  and,  by  thee 
and  thy  Spirit,  with  all  the  company  of  them  that  be  truly  thine, 
which  be  thy  spiritual  and  mystical  body,  and  our  spiritual  and 
Christian  brethren.  Hear  us,  our  Saviour  Christ,  for  thine  [1545. 
thy  name  sake.  Amen.]  name's  sake." — Private  Prayers.  Q.  Eliza* 
beih.  Parker  Society,  1851,  p.  86. 

Now  this  Prayer  first  appeared  (so  far  as  any  known 
Edition  shews)  in  Hen.  Sth's  reformed  Primer  of  1545: 
several  Editions  of  that  Book  were  subsequently  published 
down  to  the  year  1575  ;  omitting,  however,  the  reign  of 
Mary :  the  Book  is  wholly  different  both  from  the  Sarum 
Primer  (of  which*  many  Editions  were  printed,  before  and 
after  1545,  in  England  and  on  the  Continent)  and  also  from 
Edward  Gth's  Primer  of  1553;  these  therefore,  as  not  fur- 
nishing any  evidence  either  way,  need  not  here  be  considered : 
but  it  seemed  to  me  important  to  compare  the  different  exist- 
ing Copies  and  Editions  of  the  Primer  of  1545  and  to  note 
any  variations  of  the  phrase  now  under  consideration.  The 
result  of  this  collation  is  shewn  in  the  following  Table  which 


271 

will,  I  think,  materially  aid  the  enquiry  as  to  the  authority  of 
the  phrase  itself.  The  Copies  in  the  British  Museum  I  have 
myself  examined  ;  for  the  rest  I  am  partly  indebted  to  the 
kindness  of  friends  upon  whose  accuracy  I  can  rely. 

All  the  Copies  which  are  noticed  in  this  Table  were  printed 
in  London :  the  Continental  Editions  (of  which  there  are 
many),  being  of  no  value  in  this  enquiry,  are  not  included. 


No. 

Date. 

Size  and  Printer. 

Wheie  kept. 

Variations  in  the  Prayer. 

1 

1545 

4to.    E.  Whitchurche. 

B.  Mus.  C.  35.  C. 

"  Our     Saviour    and     Re- 

June 

deemer      Jesu     Christe, 

[xix. 

whiche  in  thy  last  sup- 

per with  thyne  Apostles 

didst       consecrate      THY 

BLESSED    BODY  &  BLOOD 

UNDER    THE    FOURME    OF 

BRED           AND          WYNE  : 

Graunt"  &c. 

2 

1545 

8vo.  Edw.Whitchurche. 

B.  Mus.  C.  35.  b. 

Ib.       Ib.     

June 

XX. 

C.  25.  h.  10. 

"O   Jesu    Christ,     .     .     . 

3 

1545 

4to.     Richd.  Grafton. 

B  Mu- 

COflSCCTCttC                        ** 

Sept. 

1 

vi. 

4 

1545 

4to. 

Qr  Coll.  Oxford. 

Ib.     ib.    

5 

1545 

4to.    Grafton. 

Bodl.  Gough  39. 

"  .  .  .  .  consecrate  .  .  .  ." 

6 

1545 

4to.    Grafton. 

Bodi.  Douce  BB  123. 

"  .  .  .  .  consecrate  .  .  .  ." 

7 

1545 

4to.    Whitchurch. 

Bodl.  P.  14.  Th.  Seld. 

"  .  .  .  .  consecrate  .  .  .  ." 

8 

1546 

8vo.    Ed.  Whitchurche. 

B.  Mus.  C.  35.  a. 

"  Oure     Savioure     &     re- 

Aug. 

demer  Jesu    Christ     .  . 

XX. 

consecrate  " 

9 

1546 

4to.    R.  Grafton. 

Bodl.  P.  16.  Th.  Seld. 

"  .  ...  consecrate  .  .  .  ." 

C.  25.  h.  6. 

"  Our  saviour  &    redemer 

10 

1547 

4  to.    R.  Grafton. 

BMn" 

Jesu  Christ,  .  .  .  conse- 

1—2. 

crate  .  .  .  ." 

11 

1547 

4to.    R.  Grafton. 

Bodl.  Donee  BB  122 

"  .  .  .  .  consecrate  .  .  .  ." 

12 

1549 

4to..  R.  Grafton. 

Bodl.  Gough  44. 

"  .  .  .  .  consecrate  .  .  .   ." 

C.  35  b. 

"  Our    sauiour  &  redemer 

13 

1551 

12nio.  R.  Grafton. 

B   Mu° 

T              f^  i      •     .                        sJ    7  ' 

1—2. 

«cau  v^nrisi,  *   •   .  ttcti  ccF 
thy  blessed  body"  &c. 

C.  25.  h.  9. 

14 

1551 

4to.    Will,  Powell. 

B   Mu~ 

Th                             Th 

prob. 

1-2. 

15 

1559 

above  p.  270       .     . 

"  .              deliver    ,      .  ." 

16 

1566 

12mo.  W.  Seres. 

Ball.  Coll.  Oxford. 

"  .  .  .  .  delyuer  the  Sacra- 

in 

ment  of  thy  Blessed  Bodye 

Colo- 

and Bloude:  graunt  that 

phon. 

we"  £c. 

1575 

No.  1 — Wants  Title,  supplied  in  M.S.  to  agree  with  No".  2 :  the  Colophon  gives  the  date. 

No  2 — "  The  Primer  set  forth  by  ye  Kinges  majesty  and  his  cleargy,  and  none  other  to  be 
used  throughout  his  dominions.  1545."  The  date  '•  xix.  day  of  June  1545"  occurs  in  the 
Colophon. 


272 

Having  thus  tabulated  the  results  of  the  examination  of 
these  Primers,  let  us  see  to  what  conclusion  they  lead  us : 
but,  first,  I  must  own  that,  confident  as  one  felt  of  the 

No.  3— "The  Primer  in  Englishe  and  Latyn,  set  foorth  by  the  Kynges  majestic  and  his 
Clergie  to  be  taught,  learned,  and  read  :  and  none  other  to  be  used  throughout  all  his  do- 
minions. Lend.  Richd.  Grafton,  vi.  Sept.  1545.  Cum  priv." 

No.  10— "The  Primer  set  forth  by  the  Kinges  majestic  and  bis  Clergie  to  be  taught, 
learned,  and  red :  and  none  other  to  be  used  thorowout  all  his  dominions. 

"  Imprinted  at  London  the  last  daye  of  Nouember,  in  the  first  yere  of  the  reign  of  our 
souereigne  Lorde  the  Kyng  Edward  the  vi.  by  Richard  Grafton  printer  to  his  moste  royall 
majestic,  cum  priv."  &c. 

No.  13 — No  title :  in  Colophon  "  The  ende  of  the  Primer.  Imprinted  at  London  by 
Richard  Grafton,  Printer  to  the  Kynges  majestie,  1551.  cum  priv." 

No.  14 — "The  Primer  set  furth  by  the  Kynges  hyghness  and  hys  Clergie,  to  be  taught, 
learned  and  read,  of  all  his  louying  subjectes,  all  other  set  aparte,  corrected  accordyng  to  the 
Statute  made  in  the  third,  and,  iiii.  yere  of  our  soueraigns  Lord  the  Kynges  Majesties  reigne. 

"  Cum  priuilegio  ad  imprimendum  solum.'' — Colophon.  "  Imprynted  at  London  in  Flete- 
strete,  by  me  Willyam  Powell,  dwellynge  at  the  sygne  of  the  George,  next  to  saynt  Dunstans 
Churche." 

The  book  has  no  date :  it  is  supposed  to  be  1551 :  it  may  be  later,  but  it  must  be  sub- 
sequent to  the  Stat.  of  1549-50,  in  pursuance  of  which  it  was  printed. 

The  "  Statute"  here  referred  to  is  the  3  &  4  Edw.  vi.  c.  10.  A.D.  1549-50.  "An  Act  for 
the  abolishing  and  putting  away  divers  Books  and  Images."  Section  v.  of  which  Provides 
"...  that  any  person  or  persons  may  use,  keep,  have,  and  retain  any  Primers  in  the  Eng- 
lish or  the  Latin  tongue,  set  forth  by  the  late  king  of  famous  memory.  King  Henry  the 
Eighth,  so  that  the  sentences  of  invocation  or  prayer  to  saints  in  the  same  Primers  be  blotted 
or  clearly  put  out  of  the  same ;  .  .  ." 

No.  16.— "The  Primer  and  Catechisme,  set  forth  at  large,  wyth  meny  godly  praiers  neces- 
sarie  for  all  faithfu.l  Christians  to  reade.  By  Q.  Elizaheth  [these  italicized  words  are  written 
in  ink.]  Imprinted  at  London  by  William  Seres.  Anno  1566." 

The  Colophon  reads  thus — "  Imprinted  at  London,  by  William  Seres,  dwelling  at  the  West 
ende  of  Paules  Church,  at  the  sygne  of  the  hedgehogge.  Cum  priuilegio  ad  imprimendum 
solum.  Anno  1575." 

Besides  this  Copy  (which  is  in  the  Library  of  Balliol  College,  Oxford)  there  are  two  other 
copies,  in  the  Bodleian  Library,  of  which  Mr.  Lathbury  (Hist.  Bk.  of  Com.  Prayer,  1858,)  thus 
speaks:— "In  1575  another  Primer  was  published  ....  Of  this  edition,  there  are  two 
copies  in  the  Bodleian.  They  have  indeed  usually  been  regarded  as  different  editions.  One 
has  no  title,  the  other  no  colophon.  The  title  to  the  one  has  the  date  of  1566  ;  the  colophon 
to  the  other  that  of  1575.  After  a  careful  examination,  I  ascertained  that  thej  are  of 
the  same  edition.  The  real  date  of  the  books  is  that  inthe  colophon,  1575  ;  and  the  date 
in  the  title  of  one  copy  is  merely  that  of  some  other  book,  for  which  the  woodcut  border 
had  been  used  in  1566.  Such  variations  between  the  title  and  the  colophon  of  books  in 
these  times  are  very  common.  The  woodcut  border  bore  the  date  of  the  year  in  which  it 
was  first  used;  and  in  taking  the  block  for  this  Piimer  the  date  was  either  forgotten  to  be 
removed,  or  designedly  retained,  and  the  proper  year  given  in  the  Colophon." — p.  67. 

Mr.  Lathbury  informs  me  that  his  recollection  of  these  particulars  is  quite  distinct,  and 
that  he  still  adheres  to  the  same  opinion  as  to  the  real  date  of  the  Book. 

The  Editor  of  the  Parker  Society's  reprint  of  the  Primer  of  1559  (No.  15)  also  thinks  that 
1575  "  after  all,  may  be  the  true  date  even  of  the  former  volume,"  i.e.  the  book  of  1566. 

But,  having  myself  carefully  examined  these  two  Bodleian  copies  (since  I  communicated 
with  Mr.  Lathbury),  and  compared  them  with  the  Balliol  copy,  I  am  strongly  of  opinion 
that  1566  is  the  true  date  at  which  they  were  originally  printed,  and  that  either  there  was  a 
further  issue  in  1575  with  a  Colophon  of  that  date  appended,  or  that  (as  is  just  possible)  the 
type  was  kept  standing  and  fresh  copies  were  struck  off  in  1575  That  there  was  no  re-com- 
position is  clear  from  little  defects  of  printing  (e.g.  a  lead  standing  up)  which  appear  in  the 
copies. 

With  regard  to  Mr  Lathbury's  particulars  of  the  Editions  I  must  remark  that  either  he 
has  fallen  into  an  error,  or  one  of  the  two  copies  he  mentions  is  missing  from  the  Bodleian  : 

for  both  the  copies  now  there  have  the  Title  Page,  whereas  Mr.  L states  that  only  one,  of 

the  two  he  saw,  possessed  it. 

The  two  copies  (which  are  both  imperfect)  are  marked  "  Tanner  63  "  and  "  80.  C.  85  Line." 
The  Title-page  of  both  agrees  exactly  with  the  Balliol  copy,  except  in  not  having  like  it  the 
words  "  Q.  Elizabeth"  written:  the  "  Tanner  63  "  has  no  Colophon  and  ends  with  a  "  Prayer. 
For  the  desire  of  the  life  to  come  :"  the  other  copy  has  an  additional  page  containing 
"Another  Prayer.  Almighty  God,  give  us  grace  that  we  may  cast  away  the  works  of  dark- 
ness," &c. ;  and  then  comes  a  notice — 

"  IT  Thus  endeth  the  Primer  at  large  now  newly  Printed  with  the  Kinges  Psalmes."  On 
the  back  of  this  page  is  the  Colophon  which  agrees  exactly  with  the  Balliol  copy.  The  con- 
tents of  the  Bodleian  copies  and  of  the  Balliol  copy  are  exactly  the  same:  the  Balliol  has  also 
the  additional  Prayer  contained  on  the  last  leaf  of  the  Bodleian  "  80.  C.  85  Line." 


273 

authority  attaching  to  the  dogmatic  expression  "  under  the 
form  of  bread  and  wine,"  I  had  no  idea  that  so  much  ad- 
ditional support  could  be  found  for  it  in  the  successive 
Editions  of  this  Book  of  Devotions ;  and,  next,  I  cannot  but 

Thus,  then,  it  is  clear  that  all  three  copies  were  printed  from  the  same  "forms  "  :  whether 
they  were  composed  in  1566  or  1575  is  the  point  to  be  decided  :  it  could  only  be  absolutely 
settled  that  there  was  an  Edition  of  1566  by  the  discovery  of  a  copy  bearing  that  date  both  in 
the  Title-page  and  the  Colophon,  or  by  ascertaining  with  certainty  that  the  "  Tanner  63  "  (or 
some  similar  copy)  never  had  a  Colophon. 

It  appears  to  me,  however,  that  the  following  Almanack,  which  is  found  in  all  three  copies 
(but  which  does  not  seem  to  have  been  considered  sufficiently,  if  at  all,  before)  goes  very  far 
to  remove  any  doubt  that  1566  is  the  original  date  of  the  Books. 


IT  An  Almanack  for  ix  yeares. 

gg 

$ 

3  f 

&H 

ll 

I 

ft 

i? 
Kf 

ft  3 

•*  o 

9 

I 

1566. 
1567. 

14  Aprill. 
30  March. 

9 
10 

F 

C 

1568. 

18  Aprill. 

11 

DC 

1569. 
1570. 

10  Aprill. 
26  March. 

12 
13 

B 
A 

1571. 

15  Aprill. 

14 

G 

1572. 

6  Aprill. 

15 

FC 

1573. 

22  March. 

16 

D 

1574. 

11  Aprill. 

17 

C 

Cl    The  yeare  hath, 
hundred  and,  66  dayes, 

12  months,  or  52, 
and  7,  houres. 

weekes  and  one  daye. 

And  it  hath  in  all  3 

Now,  looking  at  this  Almanack,  the  question  at  once  suggests  itself — if  this  Book  was 
printed  in  1575  how  is  it  that  the  Almanack  only  comes  down  to  1574?  For  all  practical 
purposes  it  was  wholly  useless  in  1575  to  give  the  "  Easter  daye"  for  the  nine  previous 
years:  but  it  would  have  been  important,  in  a  popular  book  printed  in  1566,  to  turnish  the 
date  of  that  Festival  for  some  subsequent  years;  and,  accordingly,  this  Almanack  gives  it 
for  the  next  eight  years  after  1566  :  it  seems  hardly  possible,  therefore,  to  avoid  the  conclu- 
sion that  the  Primer  must  have  been  originally  printed  in  1566.  Moreover  the  continuance 
of  this  same  Almanack  in  the  copies  with  the  Colophon  date  of  1575,  (viz.  the  Bodleian 
"  So.  C.  85  Line"  and  the  Balliol  copy,)  makes  me  decidedly  think  that  they  were  simply  a 
further  issue  of  stock  copies  to  which  the  Additional  Prayer  and  the  Colophon  were  added 
in  1575  ;  and  that  the  Bodleian  "  Tanner  63"  is  a  copy  of  the  Book  as  it  appeared  in  1566. 
This  opinion  is  strengthened  by  the  fact  that  the  Primer  of  1559  (No.  15)  also  contains  an 
Almanack  in  which  "  Easter  day"  is  given  for  the  15  years  next  following. 

The  two  Bodleian  copies  contain  the  Eucharistic  Prayer  precisely  in  the  altered  form  which 
occurs  in  the  Balliol  copy  (No.  16)  if,  then,  my  conjecture  as  to  the  date  of  these  three 
Books  is  correct  (viz.  1566),  it  is  likely  that  the  change  in  the  language  of  the  Prayer  was 
made  then,  and  not  in  1575  ;  and  this  is  exceedingly  probable,  considering  the  circumstance 
mentioned  by  Mr.  Griffiths  (see  p.  265)  that  similar  words,  viz.  "  in  form  of  bread"  had  been 
already  omitted  in  the  published  Editions  of  the  Homily  of  the  Resurrection  as  it  first  ap- 
peared in  1563 — just  3  years  before  this  Edition  of  the  Primer  was  put  forth. 

Still  it  is  possible  (though,  1  think,  unlikely)  that  these  copies  are  a  revised  Edition  pub- 
lished in  1575  of  one  printed  in  1566  with  the  same  Title  page,  and  worked  off  from  the  old 
"  forms"  ;  and  that,  consequently,  the  Prayer  remained  unchanged  until  the  later  date  :  but 
to  establish  this  it  is  necessary  to  find  a  copy  containing  the  unaltered  prayer  with  the  un- 
deniable date  of  1566. 

This  Edition  of  1575  appears  to  be  the  latest  authorized  Edition  of  that  of  1545  :  there  are 
indeed  in  the  Bodleian  four  copies  of  a  professed  reprint  of  the  Ed.  of  1546  (see  No.  9), 
they  are  marked  8vo.  Rawl.  218,  and  Goujjh  Missal  5,  88,93:  they  have  no  date  however; 
the  Typography  leads  to  the  belief  that  they  are  of  or  about  1701  ;  but,  as  there  is  nothing  to 
shew  that  this  reprint  was  published  by  authority  so,  no  conclusion  can  be  drawn  from  the 
fact  of  its  containing  the  Prayer  as  it  stood  in  1546. 

N  N 


974 

surmise  that  Mr.  Goode  did  not  contemplate  the  existence  of 
this  kind  of  evidence,  else  he  must  have  allowed  its  force,  and 
so  have  modified  his  language  about  the  Phrase,  or  he  would 
surely  have  produced  it  in  order  to  shew,  if  he  could,  its  in- 
applicability to  the  case.   Moreover,  in  weighing  the  evidence 
of  these  Primers,  it  is  of  much  consequence  to  remember — 
that  (like  Authors)  Printers,  and  especially  Royal  Printers, 
were  not  free  in  those  days  to  publish  what  Devotional  or 
Theological  Books  they  pleased,  nor  to  retain  or  omit  in  them 
what  they  chose  :  the  cum  privilegio  of  that  day  was  not  only 
an  inhibition  to  others,  but  also  a  stringent  law  to  those  who 
received  it,  binding  them  to  print  only  what  was  sanctioned 
by  the  proper  authority  :  so  long,  indeed,  as  that  authority  was 
not  withdrawn  from  any  given  Edition,  they  were  free  to  print 
it  as  often,  and  in  as  great  numbers,  as  the  demand  for  it  war- 
ranted ;  but  self-interest  alone  was  a  sufficient  check  to  any  de- 
parture from  this  rule  by  those  who  wished  to  retain  their  privi- 
lege.   It  is,  then,  worse  than  useless  to  allege  (as  Mr.  Goode 
does  of  the  Advertisement*)  or  to  imply,  that  the  Printers 
were  responsible  for  the  continuance  of  this  Phrase  in  suc- 
cessive Editions  of  the  Homilies,  or  of  the  Primer;  for,  to 
say  the  least,  it  is  highly  improbable  that  a  Royal  Printer  of 
that  period  would  have  taken  so  venturesome  a  step  as  to 
create  a  precedent  of  even  such  comparative  harmlessness  as, 
it  seems,  Crown  and  University  Printers  have  hazarded  within 
about  the  last  seventy  years :  viz.,  to  alter,  without  I  believe 
any  authoritative  direction,  the  Rubrics  touching  the  time  of 
Publication  of  Banns,  in  order  to  make  them  accord  with  an 
Act  of  Parliamentf  which  was  not   designed   to  abolish  the 
Rubrical  time  of  publication  (i.  e.  after  the  Nicene  Creed)  ; 
but  was  only  meant  to  legalize  another  time  in  cases  where 
compliance  with  the  Rubric  might  lead  to  fraud. 

*  "  And  this  Advertisement,  though  of  course  forming  no  part  of  the  Homilies 
was  repeated  by  succeeding  printers  in  their  editions  of  the  Book,  even  after  the 
Second  Book  had  been  added,  in  which  a  Homily  had  been  given  on  the  subject, 
maintaining  a  totally  different  doctrine  from  that  implied  in  these  words." — Goode 
on  the  Eucharist.  Vol.  i.,  p.  41.  But,  on  this  alleged  difference,  see  above, 
pp.  162—5. 

f  Stat.  26  Geo.  2,  c.  33.  A.D.  1753  "An  Act  for  the  better  preventing  of 
clandestine  Marriages." 


275 

Premising  thus  much,  we  are  bound  to  regard  the  Editions 
of  the  Primers  set  out  in  the  above  Table  as  having  that  full 
Ecclesiastical  Sanction  which  is  conveyed,  in  the  Title-Page 
of  the  "First  and  of  subsequent  Editions,  by  the  words  te  set 
forth  by  the  King's  Majesty  and  his  Clergy/' 

Further,  as  Cranmer  was  Archbishop  of  Canterbury,  and 
the  leading  Prelate  during  the  six  years  which  produced  the 
Editions  comprised  in  the  first  fourteen  copies  mentioned  in 
the  above  List,  it  must  in  all  fairness  be  assumed  (in  the  ab- 
sence of  any  proof  to  the  contrary)  that  he  concurred  in 
their  publication.  It  can  hardly  be  doubted  that  he  was 
a  party  to  the  first  Edition  in  1545,  when  it  is  remembered 
that — as  Strype  informs  us  in  writing  of  that  year — (Cranmer 
Bk.  I.  c.  30.)  Henry  8th  "had  of  late  appointed  some 
other  of  his  chaplains  and  learned  men,"  "  with  the  Arch- 
bishop, to  peruse  certain  books  of  Service,  delivered  by  the 
King  to  them,  wherein  there  were  many  superstitions  fit  to  be 
amended.  Which  the  Archbishop,  in  the  name  of  the  rest,  at 
this  time  acquainted  the  King  with  . .  ."  For,  though  it  is  true 
that  the  Primer  could  not  strictly,  perhaps,  be  included  among 
these  "  Books  of  Service"  the  fact  that  it  appeared  in  a  re- 
formed shape  in  June,  1545,  is  a  very  strong  indication  that 
the  Archbishop  had  to  examine  this  among  the  other  Books. 

We  have  already  seen  (p.  160  and  263)  that  the  Archbishop 
had  abandoned  Transubstantiation  long  before  this  time  ;  and 
therefore  if,  as  I  have  argued,  he  authorized  the  Primer  of 
1545,  he  could  not  have  used  the  phrase,  "didst  consecrate 
thy  blessed  body  and  blood  under  the  fourme  of  bred  and 
wyne,"  as  being  (in  Mr.  Goode's  words)  "  peculiar  to  those 
who  held  the  Doctrine  of  Transubstantiation,  and  main- 
tained that  the  forms  or  appearances  only  of  bread  and  wine 
remained  in  the  consecrated  elements." — Goode  on  the  Eucha- 
rist, Vol.  i.,  p.  43. 

But  it  may  fairly  enough  be  replied — that  as  Cranmer 
confesses  himself  to  have  been,  apparently  about  this  time, 
"  in  that  error  of  the  real  presence,  as  I  was  many  years  past 
in  divers  other  errors,  as  of  transubstantiation,"  etc.  (See  p. 
155,  Note,  and  compare  Foxe's  account  on  p.  84),  therefore 


276 

the  Phrase  which  he  sanctioned  in  Henry's  Primer  cannot 
be  regarded  as  a  suitable  formula  for  the  Church  of  England's 
present  Doctrine  ;  for  that,  whatever  may  now  be  her  real 
belief  as  to  the  Presence,  she  certainly  does  not  hold  that 
"Corporal  Presence  of  Christ's  natural  Flesh  and  Blood," 
which  Cranmer  is  supposed  to  refer  to  in  the  above  con- 
fession. (See  also  Strype's  Cranmer,  Bk.  I.,  c.  xviii,) 
Granting,  however,  for  argument's  sake,  that  Bishop  Ridley, 
by  means  of  Bertram's  Book,  had  not  then  brought  off  the 
Archbishop  from  a  carnal  view  of  the  Presence,  which  yet 
was  not  Transubstantiation  ;  the  objection  only  further  proves 
that  Cranmer  could  use  the  Phrase  in  some  other  than  a 
Roman  sense  ;  and,  if  so,  then  it  may  be  that  it  will  further 
serve  to  express  a  Doctrine  which  is  neither  Transubstantiation 
nor  the  "  Corporal  Presence "  of  the  Declaration  on 
Kneeling. 

Facts  prove,  I  think,  that  Cranmer  himself  thought  thus  : 
for  it  is  certain,  from  his  own  words  just  quoted,  that  in  1548 
he  had  abandoned  that  "  error  of  the  real  presence,"  of  which 
he  speaks :  yet  in  1549  another  Edition  of  the  Primer  ap- 
peared without  the  slighest  change  in  this  Prayer.  Nay  more, 
the  perpetuation  of  the  Prayer  was,  in  fact,  sanctioned  by  the 
3  &  4  Edwd.  VI.  c.  10,  which  passed  quite  at  the  beginning 
of  that  year,  (See  Note  No.  14,  p.  272)— a  Statute  which  the 
Archbishop  is  commonly  supposed  to  have  had  a  considerable 
share  in  procuring :  yet  that  Statute  required  no  other 
change  in  the  Primer  than  the  omission  of  "  the  sentences 
of  invocation  or  prayer  to  saints." 

But  if  any  one  thinks  that  the  Archbishop's  language 
about  himself  in  1548  is  not  clear  enough  to  be  wholly  relied 
upon  in  this  case,  there  can  be  no  sort  of  pretence  for  saying 
that  he  had  the  slightest  leaning  towards  a  "  corporal,"  i.e. 
carnal  Presence,  when  he  published,  in  1550,  his  "  Defence 
of  the  True  and  Catholic  Doctrine  of  the  Sacrament,"  and 
also,  in  1551,  his  "Answer  to  Gardiner,"  vindicating  that 
Book.  Yet,  in  1551,  a  new  Edition  of  the  Primer  was 
printed,  though  not  until  this  Prayer  and  the  Phrase  in 
question  had  been  re-considered,  as  is  shewn  by  the  sub- 


277 

stitution  of  "deliver"  for  "consecrate."  This  alteration 
however,  so  far  from  indicating  any  doubt  on  Cranmer's  part 
of  the  propriety  of  the  terms  of  the  Advertisement  to  the 
Homilies,  which  had  then  been/owr  years  in  circulation,  did 
but  serve  to  bring  the  Primer  Phrase  into  a  closer  verbal 
agreement  with  the  Advertisement  Phrase :  this  will  be, 
readily  seen  if  they  are  read  side  by  side,  thus  : — 

Advertisement,  1547.  Primer,  1551. 

"  Of  the  due  receiving  of  His  "  .  .  .  .  didst     deliver     Thy 

Blessed  Body  and  Blood  under  Blessed  Body  and  Blood  under 

the  form  of  bread  and  wine."  the  form  of  bread  and  wine." 

Could  language  better  harmonize  than  this?  The  Ad- 
vertisement speaks  "  of  the  due  receiving,"  by  a  particular 
medium,  of  that  same  Thing  which  the  Primer  teaches 
that  Christ  did  "  deliver  "  to  His  Apostles  through  the  very 
same  medium.  Is  it  possible,  then,  that  the  Primate  of  all 
England  and  Metropolitan  could  instruct  the  King's  "  loving 
subjects"  to  pray  in  a  Phrase  which,  at  that  very  time,  as  Mr. 
Goode  says,  he  repudiated  for  the  Church  of  England? 
Whatever  people  may  choose  to  think  of  the  Archbishop's 
want  of  consistency,  in  some  respects,  they  will  scarcely  be 
ready  to  answer  "  Yes  "  to  this  question:  yet  if  any  could  be 
found  to  take  so  miserable  an  estimate  of  Cranmer's  character, 
it  will  not  be  supposed  that  Mr.  Goode  would  unite  with 
them. 

So  far  then  as  Archbishop  Cranmer  is  concerned  it  seems 
to  me  that,  while  it  was  before  shewn  to  be  morally  certain 
that  he  was  responsible  for  the  original  appearance  of  the 
Phrase  in  the  Advertisement  to  the  First  Book  of  Homilies, 
it  is  now  proved  to  be,  at  least  something  like,  historically 
true  that  he  must  have  sanctioned  and  approved  its  con- 
tinuance there. 

Having  regard,  therefore,  to  all  the  known  evidence,  I 
cannot  but  think  it  clearly  established — that  (as  the  Arch- 
bishop must  be  held  to  have  acted  officially  and  legally  in  the 
matter,  so)  down  to  the  end  of  the  reign  of  Edward  6th  the 
Formula  in  question  had  the  complete  authority  of  the  Church 
of  England. 


278 

It  could  hardly  be  expected  that  this  reformed  Primer 
would  be  re-printed  in  Mary's  reign  :  its  omission  of  certain 
Invocations  would  be  alone  sufficient  to  prevent  its  re-issue 
then  :  but  it  is  hardly  probable  that  the  Phrase  in  the  Prayer 
would  have  been  thought  an  adequate  expression  of  the 
Doctrine  of  Transubstantiation  (then  again  held)  unless  it 
were  accompanied  with  an  explanation  to  shew  that  "  form  " 
meant  only  accidents:  yet  such  an  explanation  might  en- 
cumber a  Prayer,  and  therefore  make  it  seem  better  to  reject 
it  altogether. 

The  members  of  Convocation  at  the  Accession  of  Elizabeth 
were  of  course  those  who  represented  the  Clergy  on  the  death 
of  Mary  :  now  the  earliest  act  of  the  Lower  House  in  Eliza- 
beth's reign  (Feb.  18th  or  28th,  1558-9,  under  their  Prolo- 
cutor, Nicholas  Harpsfield,  Archdeacon  of  Canterbury)  was 
to  present  an  Address  to  the  Bishops,  to  be  tendered  to  the 
Parliament,  containing  "  certain  Articles  in  defence  of  the 
religion  established  under  Mary:"  the  "  First"  of  them  ran 
in  these  words  : — 

"  That  in  the  Sacrament  of  the  Altar,  by  virtue  of  the  words  of 
consecration  duly  pronounced  by  the  priest,  the  natural  body  and 
blood  of  Christ,  conceived  of  the  blessed  Virgin,  are  really  present 
under  the  species  [=form]  of  bread  and  wine." 

But  it  is  clear  that  they  did  not  think  this  language  would 
cover  Transubstantiation  ;  therefore  they  proceeded  to  add : — 

"  Secondly,  That  after  the  consecration  the  substance  of  bread 
and  wine  does  not  remain,  nor  any  other  substance,  excepting  that 
of  God  and  man." — Fuller,  Ch.  Hist,,  Bk.  ix.,  §  1  ;  and  Collier, 
Eccl.  Hist.,  Pt.  ii.,  Bk.  6. 

In  fact  they  repeated  what  was  done  by  the  advocates  of 
Transubstantiation  in  Henry  Sth's  reign,  when  they  suc- 
ceeded, against  Archbishop  Cranmer  and  others,  in  intro- 
ducing this  very  same  language  into  the  first  of  the  Six 
Articles  of  1539,  although  three  years  before  (1536)  the  Con- 
vocation had  excluded  Transubstantiation,  while  allowing  a 
physical  Presence,  by  expressing  itself  in  the  following  lan- 
guage which  was  sanctioned  by  the  king  : — 

"  FOURTHLY.— As  touching  the  Sacrament  of  the  Altar,  we  will, 
that  all  bishops  and  preachers  shall  instruct  and  teach  our  people 


279 

....that  they  ought  and  must  constantly  believe,  that,  under  the 
form  of  bread  and  wine,  which  we  there  presently  do  see  and  per- 
ceive by  outward  senses,  is  verily,  Substantially,  and  really  con- 
tained and  comprehended  the  very  self-same  body  and  blood  of  our 
Saviour  Jesus  Christ,  which  was  born  of  the  Virgin  Mary,  and 
suffered  upon  the  cross  for  our  redemption  ;  and  that,  under  the 
same  form  and  figure  of  bread  and  wine,  the  very  self-same  body 

and  blood  of  Christ  is  corporally,  really,  and  in  the  very  sub- 
stance exhibited,  distributed,  and  received  unto  and  of  all  them 
which  receive  the  said  sacrament ;  and  that  therefore  the  said  sac- 
rament is  to  be  used  with  all  due  reverence  and  honour  ; " — 

Fuller,  Bk.  v.,  §  4. 

So  then,  in  what  has  just  been  said,  is  to  be  found  a  further 
reason  for  the  Primer  of  1545  not  being  re-published  under 
Queen  Mary,  though  an  unreformed  Primer  was  reprinted. 

But,  so  soon  as  the  Archiepiscopal  throne  was  filled  by 
Queen  Elizabeth's  appointment  of  Parker,  no  time  was  lost 
in  re-producing  reformed  Office  Books,  and  the  same  year 
(1559)  which  witnessed  Elizabeth's  Prayer  Book,  saw  also  a 
new  Edition  of  the  Primer,  with  no  other  change  in  the 
Prayer  than  that  substitution  of  "  deliver"  for  "  consecrate," 
which  was  made  in  1551.  Thus,  then,  at  the  commencement 
of  another  distinct  period  in  the  Reformation,  the  Phrase 
which  is  said  (though  how  truly  I  have  already  considered) 
to  have  been  repudiated  for  the  Church  of  England  by  one 
Archbishop,  re-appears  under  the  sanction  of  another  Primate 
whose  Theological  soundness  also  is  not  questioned  by  those 
who  object  to  the  Phrase ;  moreover,  it  re-appeared  at  the 
same  time  in  a  new  Edition  of  the  First  Book  of  Homilies, 
which  had  not  been  merely  left  to  the  Royal  Printers  to  set 
up  from  any  old  Edition,  but  which  had  been  (as  before 
noticed)  "  by  her  Grace's  aduyse  perused  and  ouersene,  for 
the  better  understandying  of  the  simple  people."  Mr. 
Griffiths  states  (p.  Iviii.)  that  "  many  verbal  alterations  were 
made  in  the  text,  partly  by  substitution,  partly  by  addition  :" 
so  that  the  Editor  must  have  carefully  read  the  Book ;  yet, 
either  he  carelessly  passed  over  the  Advertisement  at  the 
End  of  it,  or  he  knew  that  it  was  meant  not  to  be  altered ; 
can  any  one  reasonably  doubt  that  the  latter  was  his  real 
condition  ? 


280 

I  am  not  unmindful  of  the  facts  that  Jewel  was  only 
Elected  Bishop  on  August  21st,  1559,  and  was  not  Conse- 
crated until  the  21st  January  following:  it  may  therefore  be 
urged  that,  as  he  could  not  have  been  a  party  to  the  re-pub- 
lication of  the  Primer  in  1559  so,  he  must  not  be  held 
responsible  for  the  continuance  of  the  unaltered  Prayer,  and, 
consequently,  it  ought  not  to  be  cited  in  proof  that  he  used, 
either  approvingly  or  as  being  authorized,  the  language 
quoted  from  him  at  pp.  249  and  264  Note.  Yet,  surely,  if 
ever  "  silence  gives  consent,"  and  use  implies  approval,  it 
was  so  in  this  case :  for  his  Reply  to  Harding  was  not  pub- 
lished until  1565,  nor  his  Defence  of  the  Apology  until  1567, 
yet  both  the  Primer  and  the  First  Book  of  Homilies  had  been 
circulating  for  six  years  before  the  earlier  of  these  dates ;  nay, 
more,  for  two  years  the  Second  Book  of  Homilies  had  also 
been  distributed,  under  the  Sanction  of  the  Crown  and  the 
Convocation,  as  expressed  in  the  XXXVth  Article  ;  and  he, 
as  a  Diocesan  Bishop,  had  to  see  that  all  were  duly  used.  If, 
however,  the  Phrase  in  question  was  obnoxious  to  the  Church 
of  England,  or  even  to  Jewel  himself,  could  there  have  been 
a  better  and  fairer  opportunity  for  him  to  have  said  so  than 
when  discussing  with  Harding  its  Theological  significance  ? 
How  came  it  to  pass  that,  instead  of  merely  defining  the 
word  "form  "  which  occurs  in  it,  he  neglected  so  fitting  an 
occasion  to  repudiate  the  Phrase  altogether,  either  for  him- 
self, or  for  the  Church  of  England,  or  for  both  ?  I  can 
only  suppose  that  he  had  no  wish  personally  to  disown  it, 
or  that,  if  he  had,  he  felt  he  was  not  free  to  do  so  for  the 
Church  of  England,  so  long  as  it  remained  in  any  of  her 
authorized  Books. 

These  remarks  are  also  a  further  answer  to  Mr.  Griffiths' 
observation,  already  noticed  in  the  Note  to  p.  265. 

But,  having  insisted  so  much  on  the  repeated  re-publica- 
tion in  the  Primer  of  the  language  which  Mr.  Goode  declares 
to  have  had  no  authority  in  the  Advertisement  of  the  First 
Book  of  Homilies,  it  would  be  unpardonable  in  me  not  to 
draw  particular  attention  to  the  latest  known  Edition  of  the 
Primer,  which  is  noticed  in  the  preceding  Table  ;  for  a  very 


281 

considerable  change  was  made  in  the  Prayer  as  given  in  that 
Edition  ;  no  less,  in  fact,  than  the  entire  omission  of  the 
alleged  unauthorized  formula ;  so  that  the  Prayer  reads 
thus : — 

"  Our  Saviour  and  Redeemer,  Jesus  Christ,  which  in  Thy  last 
supper  with  Thine  Apostles  didst  deliver  the  Sacrament  of  Thy 
Blessed  Body  :  grant  that  we,"  &c. 

There  is  some  doubt  (as  I  have  pointed  out  in  the  Note  at 
p.  272)  as  to  the  true  date  of  this  Edition  of  the  Primer :  the 
Title  page  calls  it  1566,  but  the  Colophon  marks  it  as  1575: 
it  is  not  unlikely  that  both  dates  are  correct;  the  former 
(1566)  indicating  (as  I  have  said)  the  period  when  it  was  first 
printed,  the  latter  (1575)  the  time  of  its  re-print  or  re-issue; 
this  may  have  arisen  from  the  very  common  practice  with 
printers  at  that  period  of  continuing  to  use  an  old  Title 
page,  if  it  was  a  Block,  and  printing  the  real  date  of  an 
Edition  in  the  Colophon.  It  is  quite  probable  that  there 
may  have  been  an  Edition  in  1566,  though,  as  no  copy  is 
known  with  that  date  only,  there  is  no  means  of  ascertaining 
whether  the  Prayer  was  altered  at  that  time,  or  not  until 
1575:  the  true  date  of  the  alteration  is  not,  however, 
material  for  my  present  purpose ;  though  if  it  be  1 575  it 
strengthens  my  argument,  as,  in  that  case,  the  alteration  was 
four  years  after  Bishop  Jewel's  death,  and  in  the  last  year 
of  Archbishop  Parker's  life. 

Yet,  assuming  that  the  change  was  made  in  1566,  the 
change  itself  implies  that  the  old  phraseology  was  allowed  up 
to  that  time  :  why,  then,  was  it  changed  at  all  ?  As  nothing 
is  known  of  the  history  of  the  change  the  cause  can  only  be 
matter  of  conjecture,  but  that,  I  think,  a  natural  conjecture. 
It  is  well  known  that  nothing  better  impresses  Doctrine  on 
the  mind  than  the  language  of  prayers  which  are  in  frequent 
or  constant  use  :  but  the  expression  "  under  the  form  of 
bread  and  wine "  had  marked  Doctrines  which  were  no 
longer  held  by  the  Church  of  England,  and  which  clearly 
were  intended  to  be  excluded  by  that  Homily  on  the  Sacra- 
ment which  was  authorized  in  the  Convocation  of  1563. 
But  the  continued  use,  in  a  Prayer,  of  a  Dogmatic  Phrase, 

o  o 


282 

claimed  respectively  by  the  holders  of  three  different  Doc- 
trines, viz.,  Transubstantiation  (either  with  or  without  a 
Carnal  Presence) — a  Corporal,  i.  e.,  a  Physical  Presence, — 
and  a  Heal,  i.e.,  a  True,  but  not  a  Material  Presence, — might 
perplex  or  mislead  those  who  were  not  Theologians;  es- 
pecially as  at  that  time  the  Declaration  on  Kneeling  (which, 
as  I  am  throughout  contending,  was  designed  to  exclude 
every  possible  theory  of  a  Carnal  Presence)  was  not  appended 
to  the  Communion  Office,  and  so  that  authoritative  safeguard 
was  wanting.  It  has  been  seen  (See  p.  213)  that  Bishop 
Cheney  (though  opposed  to  Transubstantiation)  apparently 
held  a  Material  Presence,  at  this  very  period,  therefore  it 
may  have  more  or  less  prevailed  in  his  Diocese  of  Gloucester 
— perhaps  elsewhere.  To  omit  from  the  Primer,  then  in  use, 
the  Phrase  which  might  be  thus  misunderstood,  may  well 
have  been  thought  a  likely  mode  of  correcting  the  error,  and 
of  preventing  its  extension. 

Yet,  if  this  were  so,  why  was  not  the  like  process  of  ex- 
cision resorted  to  in  the  Homilies  ?  Obviously,  I  think,  be- 
cause there  was  no  similar  danger  of  misunderstanding  ;  for, 
(1)  the  Homilies  were  not  Prayers ;  (2)  they  were  not  much 
in  the  hands  of,  or  read  by,  the  people ;  (3)  though  they 
were  read  to  the  people  by  the  Clergy,  the  Advertisement 
of  course  was  not  read ;  (4)  the  Phrase  did  not  occur  in  any 
Homily,  being  probably  omitted  on  prudential  grounds,  as  I 
have  already  suggested  at  pp.  165  and  267.  It  was  one  thing 
for  the  Bishops  to  remove  from  a  Prayer  or  a  Homily* 
language  which  did  not  involve  any  point  of  essential  Faith, 
but  which  might  be  designedly  perverted,  or  popularly  mis- 
applied ;  quite  another  to  withdraw  a  Dogmatic  statement,  of 
real  Theological  value,  from  a  Notice  never  designed  to  be 
publicly  read,  or  privately  meditated  upon.  The  Advertise- 
ment at  the  end  of  the  First  Book  of  Homilies  was  a  kind  of 
Historic  link  which  bound  it  to  the  Second  Book,  and  which 

*  I  am  willing  to  concede  to  Mr.  Griffiths  that  this  feeling  may  have  had  its 
influence  in  the  omission,  from  the  Homily  of  the  Resurrection,  of  the  words 
"  in  form  of  bread ;"  though,  as  I  have  said  in  the  Note,  p.  265,  I  do  not  think 
his  argument  accounts  for  it. 


283 

showed  how,  and  how  faithfully,  the  intentions  of  those  who 
authorized  the  earlier  Book  had  been  carried  out,  either  by 
themselves,  or  by  their  successors,  in  the  later  Volume ;  and 
this  alone  would  be  a  sufficient  reason  for  its  being  retained 
in  every  Edition  down  to  the  present  day,  and  for  faithfully 
retaining  it  hereafter.  But  it  was,  and  is,  still  more  a  duty 
not  to  abandon  a  Theological  Formula  which  had  acquired  a 
definite  meaning  in  connection  with  the  settled  Eucharistic 
Doctrine  of  the  Church  of  England ;  though  it  might  not  be 
thought  then,  and  may  not  be  considered  now,  needful  or 
profitable  to  employ  it  in  the  ordinary  religious  instruction  of 
the  people. 

Having  thus  carefully  examined  and,  I  hope,  fairly  esti- 
mated the  evidence  for  and  against  the  contested  language  of 
the  Advertisement,  it  does  seem  to  me,  and  will  I  trust 
appear  to  others,  clearly  established  that  the  Phrase  "  Of  the 
due  receiving  of  Sis  Blessed  Body  and  Blood  under  the  form 
of  bread  and  wine,"  is  a  Theological  definition  strictly  au- 
thorized by  the  Church  of  England,  and  therefore  one  which 
may  be  most  fairly  and  confidently  used  in  controversies 
touching  the  Doctrine  of  the  Real  Presence  in  the  Holy  Eu- 
charist. 

Pursuing  this  Historical  Enquiry  in  the  order  of  time,  it 
is  necessary  to  notice  the  very  important  additions  which  were 
made  to  the  Church  Catechism  in  the  reign  of  James  1st :  it 
is  pretty  generally  allowed  that,  considering  the  known  views 
of  Overall  their  reputed  author,  these  additional  explana- 
tions of  Sacramental  Belief  were  designed  to  be  in  the 
direction  of  what  is  called  High  Doctrine.  That  there  was 
no  intention  of  being  deterred  from  this  by  any  clamour 
about  Popish  teaching,  is  plain  from  what  the  King  said  on 
the  second  day  of  the  Hampton- Court  Conference,  January 
16,  1603-4 ;  for,  in  answer  to  Dr.  Remolds,  one  of  the 
Puritan  representatives,  who  "  complained  that  the  Cate- 
chism in  the  Common  Prayer  Book  was  too  brief;  .  .  .  and 
.  .  .  requested  therefore,  that  one  uniform  catechism  might 
be  made,"  it  is  reported  that, — 

"  His  Majesty  thought  the  doctor's  request  very  reasonable :  but 


284 

yet  so,  that  he  would  have  a  Catechism  in  the  fewest  and  plainest 
affirmative  terms  that  may  be  :" 

and  stating  as  one  rule  to  be  observed  "  in  reforming  of  a 
Church"— 

"that  there  should  not  be  any  such  departure  from  the  Papists  in 
all  things,  as  that  because  we  in  some  points  agree  with  them, 
therefore  we  should  be  accounted  to  be  in  error." — Card.  Hist. 
Con/.,  p.  187. 

With  respect  to  the  nature  and  tendency  of  these  Cate- 
chetical additions,  I  cannot  do  better  than  cite  the  language 
of  the  same  candid  but  adverse  writer  whom  I  have  before 
quoted. 

Mr.  Fisher,  speaking  of  them,  remarks  that — 

"  Since  the  revision  of  1604 — or,  at  all  events,  since  the  year 

1662 — Sacramentalism  most  decidedly  predominates In  short, 

it  is  not  too  much  to  say,  that  in  the  Catechism  as  it  now  stands,  the 
SACRED  ORACLES,  considered  as  an  inspired  Code  of  religious  belief, 
are  completely  overshadowed  by  the  prominence  given  to  a  Patristic 
scheme  of  sacramental  theology." — Liturgical  Purity,  p.  293. 

Again  he  says  : — 

*'....  it  lets  in  the  whole  system  of  Romish  Sacramentalism,  by  the 
insertion  of  a  series  of  questions  and  answers,  both  upon  Baptism  and 
the  Lord's  Supper,  which  are  at  least  open  to  a  Papistical  interpre- 
tation  

"  For  instance — the  old  and  essentially  "  Romish  dogma  of  '  the 
real  presence*  receives,  it  may  safely  be  affirmed,  a  plausible 
sanction  at  least,  if  nothing  more,  from  the  terms  of  the  following 
question  and  answer  : — 

"  4  Q.  What  is  the  inward  part  or  thing  signified  ?  ' 
"  '  A.  The  body  and  blood  of  Christ,  which  are  verily  and  indeed 
taken  and  received  by  the  faithful  in  the  Lord's  Supper.'  " 

The  italics  are  Mr.  Fisher's. 

And  he  argues  that  it  is  "  assuming  the  very  question  in  dis- 
pute "  to  reply,  as  some  do,  that  the  28th  Article  teaches  a 
different  and  the  true  Doctrine  and  "  that  the  Church  cannot 
contradict  herself;"  Mr.  F.,  on  the  contrary,  insists  "that 
the  Church  is,  in  several  important  particulars,  inconsistent 
with  herself,"-— pp.  297-8.  Further,  he  adds  :— 

"  It  is  a  significant  fact  that  the  expression  '  verily  and  indeed,  is 
the  very  expression  used  in  those  definitions  of  the  Eucharistic 
presence,  which  have  at  different  times  been  adopted,  for  the  pur- 


285 

pose  of  bringing  the  sacramental  doctrine  of  the  East  into  the  closest 
possible  approximation  to  that  of  Rome."— p.  299. 

In  proof  he  quotes  from  Neale's  Hist,  of  the  Eastern 
Church,  and  Palmer's  Dissertations,  the  Decree  of  the  Coun- 
cil of  Bethlehem,  1671—2. 

It  will  not  be  out  of  place  to  insert  here  an  extract  from 
one  of  the 

"Articles  of  Religion,  agreed  upon  by  the  Archbishops  and 
Bishops,  and  the  rest  of  the  Clergie  of  Ireland,  in  the  Convocation 
holden  at  Dublin  in  the  year  of  our  Lord  God  1615,  for  the 
avoyding  of  Diuersities  of  Opinion  :  and  the  establishing  of  consent 
touching  true  Religion." 

The  passage  is  as  follows  : — 

"  Of  the  Lord's  Supper. 

"  In  the  outward  part  of  the  Holy  Communion  the  Body  and 
Blood  of  Christ  is  in  a  most  lively  manner  represented  :  being  no 
otherwise  present  with  the  visible  Elements,  than  things  signified 
and  sealed  are  present  with  the  signes  and  scales,  that  is  to  say, 
symbolically  and  relatively.  But  in  the  inward  and  spirituall  part, 
the  same  Bodie  and  Bloud  is  really  and  substantially  presented 
unto  all  those,  who  have  grace  to  receive  the  Sonne  of  God,  even  to 
all  those  that  beleeve  on  His  Name.  And  unto  such  as  in  this  manner 
doe  worthily  and  with  Faith  repaire  unto  the  Lorde's  Table,  the 
Bodie  and  Bloud  of  Christ  is  not  only  signified  and  offered,  but  also 
truely  exhibited  and  communicated." — Eccl.  Injunctions,  1559- 
1732,  in  B.  Museum. 

The  rest  of  the  Article  is  composed  of  the  English  Articles 
28,  29,  30,  and  31,  with  some  slight  variations.  I  quote  the 
passage  as  an  instance  of  the  authoritative  use  of  the  words, 
"  really  and  substantially  "  in  reference  to  the  inward  part  of 
this  Sacrament — the  "Bodie  and  Bloud"  of  Christ — which 
the  Article  seems  to  teach  is  thus  "presented"  to  the  worthy 
communicant  only,  though  They  are  "represented"  by  "the 
outward  part  "  to  all  "  in  a  most  lively  manner."  The  defi- 
nition is  curious,  making,  apparently  a  Symbolical  and  Real 
Objective  Presence  to  one  class  of  Communicants — the 
worthy  :  a  Symbolical  Objective  Presence  only  to  another 
class — the  unworthy. 

Here  it  will  be  convenient,  as  I  am  referring  to  the  Church 
Catechism,  to  notice  Mr.  Goode's  objection  to  the  sense  at- 


286 

tached  to  the  words  "  the  faithful  "  by  the  writers  he  is  op- 
posing :  he  says  (Supplement,  p.  24)  that : — 

". .  .  .where  the  common  sense  of  every  impartial  reader  tells  him, 
that  the  words  were  meant  to  indicate  that  the  Body  and  Blood  of 

Christ  were  taken  and  received  by  the  faithful  only,*  Dr. 

Pusey  would  fain  have  us  suppose,  that  the  Catechism  maintains 
with  him,  that  all  receive  the  inward  part,  the  Body  and  Blood,  in 
receiving  the  outward  ;  but  the  faithful  alone  receive  the  grace  that 
flows  from  them.  But  this  is  directly  contrary  to  what  the  Cate- 
chism really  says,  for  it  clearly  limits  the  reception  of  the  Body  and 
Blood  to  the  <  faithful: 

"  The  only  possible  mode  of  explaining  away  this  statement  of 
the  Catechism  is,  either  to  say  with  Archdeacon  Denison,  that  the 
statement  does  not  mean  to  deny  that  the  Body  and  Blood  of  Christ 
may  be  received  by  the  unfaithful  just  as  much  as  by  the  faithful ; 
or  with  one  of  his  defenders,  that  the  phrase  'the  faithful'  merely 
means  here  all  the  baptized,  that  is,  in  fact,  everybody  who  comes 
to  communicate ;  both  which  explanations  I  willingly  leave  in  the 
hands  of  the  reader." 

This  last  sentence  of  course  means,  that  no  "  reader  "  is 
likely  to  give  any  credence  to  these  "  explanations."  But, 
as  it  would  be  worse  than  useless  to  pen  a  Catechism  in  lan- 
guage of  a  loose  and  unauthorized  character  so,  we  may  be 
sure  that  the  terms  employed  in  1604  were  such  as  had  a 
definite  Theological  import.  Whether  either  of  these  "  ex- 
planations "  indicates  the  true  meaning  of  the  words  seems, 
at  least,  worth  considering ;  and  it  might  have  been  more  to 
the  purpose  if,  instead  of  thus  remitting  them  to  his  readers, 
Mr.  Goode  had  suggested  some  mode  of  determining  who 
are  meant  by  "  the  faithful  "  in  the  Catechism. 

Perhaps  Mr.  Goode  might  reply  that  he  has  examined 
this  point  in  the  "Work"  to  which  the  "Supplement" 
belongs  ;  but,  except  a  short  passage  in  p.  754,  I  cannot 
find  anything  that  really  touches  the  question  :  Mr.  Goode 
says :  — 

"  I  observe  that  an  attempt  has  been  made  to  affix  to  the  words 
'  the  faithful,'  in  that  portion  of  the  Catechism  commented  upon 
in  pp.  668  et  seq.,  above,  the  meaning  of  all  baptized  Christians 
as  distinguished  from  the  heathen.  To  this,  indeed,  Archdeacon 
Denison  himself  alludes  in  his  Sermon ;  but  as  he  declined  to 

*  I  omit  some  rather  uncourteous  language. 


287 

*  insist '  upon  it,  I  did  not  think  it  worth  while  to  detain  the  reader 
to  discuss  it.  In  reply  to  such  an  argument,  I  think  it  sufficient  to 
point  out,  that  all  the  numerous  Commentaries  on  the  Catechism 
that  have  ever  been  written  by  Archbishops,  Bishops,  and  Divines 
of  all  views  and  parties,  have  agreed  in  interpreting  the  words  as 
referring  to  true  believers  ; . .  .  ."—p.  754. 

Mr.  Goode  had  previously  given  (pp.  697 — 726)  a  series 
of  extracts  from  twenty -one  such  Commentaries,  ranging  from 
1623  to  1790 :  they  appear  to  me,  however,  to  contribute 
barely  anything  towards  the  settlement  of  the  points  which 
he  notices  in  the  above  passages :  an  examination  of  them 
seems  to  furnish  the  following  results: — • 

EIGHT,  not  to  the  purpose,  viz. : — 

"  Dr.  Comber,  1683  ;  Bp.  Ken,  1685  ;  Bp.  John  Williams,  1690  ; 
Revd.  John  Lewis,  1700  ;  Dr.  Edwd.  Wells,  1707  ;  Bp.  Burnet, 
1710;  Revd.  James  Salter,  1753  ;  and  Bp.  Mann,  1790. 

FOUR,  inadequate,  viz. : — 

Bp.  Nicholson,  1655  ;  Dr.  Simon  Ford,  1684,  who  only  says 
that  "  none  but  believers  thus  [i.e.,  spiritually  and  by  faith]  receive 
them  [i.e.,  the  Body  and  Blood  of  Christ]  "  ;  Bp.  Beveridge,  1704  ; 
and  Revd.  John  Olyffe,  1710. 

THREE,  only  speak  of  worthy  receivers,  viz.  .• — 

The  Oxford  Catechism,  1679;  Rev.  Joseph  Harrison,  1718; 
and  Archn.  Waterland,  1730. 

THREE  support,  in  different  degrees,  Mr.  Goode's  view, 
viz.  : — 

Dr.  Mayer,  1623,  who  speaks  of  *  faith  making  Him  [Christ] 
present  unto  the  worthy  receiver  ;  Abp.  Wake,  1697,  who  says, 
"  that  which  is  given  by  the  Priest  ....  The  very  Body  and  Blood 
of  Christ  as  yet  it  is  not.  But  being  with  faith  and  piety  received 
by  the  Communicant,  it  becomes  to  him  ....  the  very  Body  and 
Blood  of  Christ;"  and  Rev.  Peter  Newcombe,  1712,  who,  denying 
"Christ's  Body  and  Blood"  to  be  "  carnally  present  in  these  ele- 
ments," asserts  "  that  a  real  Presence  is  not  to  be  sought  in  "  them, 
"  but  in  the  worthy  communicants." 

The  remaining  three  seem  to  me  to  be  favourable  to  those 
whom  Mr.. Goode  is  opposing,  viz.  : — 

Revd.  James  Stillingfleet,  1787;  Abp.  Seeker,   1771,  who  says, 


288 

"  . .  .  .in  one  sense,  all  communicants  equally  partake  of  what  Christ 
calls  His  Body  and  Blood,  that  is,  the  outward  signs  of  them  ;  yet 
in  a  much  more  important  sense,  the  faithful  only,  the  pious  and 
virtuous  receiver,  eats  His  flesh,  and  drinks  His  Blood  ;  shares  in 
the  life  and  strength  derived  to  men  from  His  incarnation  and  death  : 
....  In  appearance  the  Sacrament  of  Christ's  death  is  given  to  all 
alike ;  but  verily  and  indeed,  in  its  beneficial  effects,  to  none  be- 
sides the  faithful.  Even  to  the  unworthy  communicant  He  is 
present,  as  He  is  wherever  we  meet  together  in  His  name ;  but  in 
a  better  and  most  gracious  sense  to  the  worthy  soul ;  becoming,  by 
the  inward  virtue  of  His  Spirit,  its  food  and  sustenance."  * 

Dr.  Sherlock,  1660,  is  the  remaining  one  of  these  three ; 
Mr.  Goode  quotes  him  as  stating  that : — 

"  . .  . .  as  the  bread  and  wine  are  truly  taken  and  received  cor- 
porally, so  verily  and  indeed  is  the  Body  and  Blood  of  Christ  taken 
and  received  spiritually  of  every  true  faithful  soul  in  the  Lord's 
Supper  if  rightly  administered." 

But,  as  such  language  does  not  necessarily  exclude  a  belief 
that  those  who  are  not  "  true  faithful "  communicants  receive 
in  some  way  the  Body  and  Blood  of  Christ  so,  Sherlock's 
own  words,  published  thirteen  years  later  in  his  "  Practical 
Christian"  (1673)  shew  that  he  saw  no  contradiction  in  the 
two  views  ;  especially  as  his  Catechism  was  reprinted  during 
his  lifetime  (1677):  the  following  passages  from  the  "  Prac- 
tical Christian  (Ed.  1846)  seem  to  me  to  leave  no  doubt  as 
to  what  he  held  : — 

"  The  Sacramental  Body  of  Christ  is  the  consecrated  elements  of 
bread  and  wine  in  the  Sacrament.  This  is  expressly  affirmed  by  our 
Lord  saying,  '  This  is  My  Body,  This  is  My  Blood.'  Who  then 
dare  say,  (as  the  Fathers  frequently  observe,)  This  is  not  His  Body, 
but  a  figure  of  His  Body  only  ? 

"He  discerns  not  this  Body  of  our  Lord,  1.  who  sees  not  with  the 
eye  of  faith,  Christ  really  present,  under  the  species  of  Bread  and 
Wine,  though  he  conceive  not  the  manner  thereof  .  .  .  ." 

"  Those  old  verses,  expressing  the  faith  of  the  wisest  of  our  first 

*  It  is  desirable  to  record  here  Archbishop  Seeker's  opinion  of  the  meaning 
of  The  Declaration  in  what  it  says  as  to  kneeling  : — "  It  is  true,  we  also  kneel 
at  the  Sacrament,  as  they  [the  Romanists]  do  :  but  for  a  very  different  purpose  : 
not  to  acknowledge  any  corporeal  presence  of  Christ's  natural  flesh  and  blood; 
as  our  Church,  to  prevent  all  possibility  of  misconstruction  expressly  declares  ; 
adding  that  His  body  is  in  Heaven,  and  not  here :  but  to  worship  Him,  who  is 

everywhere  present,  the  invisible  God "     Compare  the  Note^  p.  117,  on 

the  "  Opinion"  of  the  Bishop  of  St.  Andrews. 


289 

Reformers,  may  satisfy  every  modest,  humble,  and  sober-minded 
good  Christian  in  this  great  mystery  of  godliness  : 

'  It  was  the  Lord  that  spake  it, 
He  took  the  Bread  and  brake  it ; 
And  -what  the  Word  did  make  it, 
So  I  believe  and  take  it.' 

«   9 

£i.  ••••...... 

"  3.  He  discerns  not  this  Sacramental  Body  of  the  Lord,  who 
prepares  not  himself  to  receive  the  same  with  all  '  reverence  and 
godly  fear  ;'  with  *  hands  washed  in  innocency ;'  and  into  a  '  pure 
and  clean  heart;'  into  a  soul  'cleansed  from  all  filthiness,  both  of 
flesh  and  spirit  ;'*  and  perfumed  (as  was  our  Lord's  crucified  Body) 
with  the  sweet  odours  of  humility  and  compunction,  of  love  and  de- 
votion, of  obedience  and  charity. 

"And  he  that  receives  Christ's  holy  Body  and  Blood  into  his 
soul,  not  first  emptied  of  all  his  sins  by  holy  faith,  and  all  the  sacred 
offices  of  true  repentance,  doth,  with  Judas,  betray  his  Master  into 
the  hands  of  His  enemies  which  crucified  Him :  for  those  were  our 
sins.  And  therefore  it  is  said  of  such  unworthy  receivers,  that 
'  they  are  guilty  of  the  Body  and  Blood  of  Christ.'  "—Vol.  I., 
pp.  182-4.f 

If,  then,  Bishop  Sherlock  could  write  thus  when  dealing 
expressly  with  this  question  (though  Mr.  Goode's  citation  of 
his  Catechism  might  lead  to  an  opposite  inference)  it  may 
well  be  that,  many  at  least  of,  the  other  writers  just 
noticed  would  have  coincided  with  Bishop  Sherlock  if  they 
had  felt  themselves  obliged  to  discuss  the  point  which  he 
considered.  It  was  one  thing  for  them  to  write  explicitly  on, 

*  The  following  Prayer  (which  I  do  not  quote  as  of  any  authority  now,  but 
only  as  an  old  explanation  of  the  being  "  guilty  of  the  Body  and  Blood  of  the 
Lord)  occurs  in  the  Sarum  Primer  of  1541  *  and  in  Thomas  Petyt's  Editions  of 

1543  B.  M.-C.  35  c.     1544  B.  M.   ..c^2b: 

"  When  thou  hast  receyved  the  sacrament. 

"  The  verye  true  receyuynge  of  thy  gloryous  body  of  flesshe  and  bloode :  my 
soueraygne  lorde  omnypotent  is,  that  I  caste  it  not  forthe  agayne  to  my  damp- 
nacyon  and  judgement  but  that  I  may  optayne  thereby  remyssyon  of  my  synnes : 
and  that  I  may  lyue  in  charytable  lyfe  whyles  I  am  here  lyuynge,  so  that  I 
maye  hereafter  comme  to  eternall  lyfe,  by  the  vertue  and  grace.  So  be  it." 

f  Mr.  Goode  (pp.  864-6)  tries,  ineffectually  as  I  think,  to  reconcile  this 
language  with  his  own  views. 

*  This  Primer  (with  other  Books  and  a  super-altare)  was  found,  August  5,  1857,  in  the 
North  wall  of  the  (now  rebuilt)  Chancel  of  St.  Mary  the  Virgin,  Addington,  Bucks.  The 
only  other  copy,  I  believe,  of  this  Edition  is  preserved  in  the  Library  of  Stonyhurst  College. 
In  the  first  Prayer  of  the  Dirige  are  the  words,  "and  forgive  them  all  their  sins,"  which 
Mr.  Maskell  says  (Mon.  Kit.,  Vol.  II.,  p.  121,  Note)  do  not  occur  in  any  of  the  Editions  of 
Henry  VHIth's  Latin  and  English  Primers  which  he  had  seen. 

P    P 


290 

what  I  may  call,  the  positive  side  of  the  Catechism,  seeing 
that  all  concurred  in  the  belief — that  worthy  Communicants 
received  (in  whatever  manner)  "the  Body  and  Blood  of 
Christ"  with  all  Its  "benefits;"  quite  another  thing  for 
them  to  argue  the  negative  side,  especially  as  there  had 
always  been  great  divergency  of  opinion  in  the  Church  as  to 
the  way  in  which  those  who  discerned  not  the  Lord's  Body 
in  the  Sacrament  were  to  be  accounted  guilty  of  It. 

But  it  never  can  be  unfair  to  interpret  the  language  of  a 
writer  by  his  known  opinions,  unless  there  is  clear  evidence 
that  he  meant  to  speak  in  a  different  sense ;  if,  therefore,  as 
is  commonly  supposed,  the  Catechetical  Questions  on  the 
Sacraments  are  due  to  Bishop  Overall,  his  own  supposed* 
statements  elsewhere  ought  to  be  a  satisfactory  proof  of  his 
meaning  in  the  Catechism :  one  (and  the  most  pertinent)  of 
these  has  been  already  given  in  full  at  p.  137  :  here,  there- 
fore, it  may  suffice  to  quote  the  words— "  .  .  .  the  Body  and 
Blood  of  Christ  is  really  and  substantially  present,  and  so  ex- 
hibited and  given  to  all  that  receive  it ;  .  .  ." 

In  the  extracts  given  from  Mr.  Goode  at  p.  286,  he  ob- 
jects to  any  attempt  to  "  affix  to  the  words  '  the  faithful '  " 

*  I  say  "  supposed  "  because  Mr.  Goode  (pp.  827-8)  contends  that  the  Notes  in 
which  these  passages  are  contained  "were  neither  written  by  Overall,  nor  claim  the 
authority  of  being  derived  from  his  papers."  And  he  adds,  "  By  whom  they 
were  written  cannot  now  probably  be  ascertained,  but  certainly  it  was  not 
Bishop  Cosin,  who  was  Overall's  chaplain,  because  his  Notes,  as  we  shall  see 
presently,  are  of  a  very  different  kind." 

But  the  learned  Editor  of  Bishop  Cosin's  Notes  (Ang.  Cath.  Lib.}  carefully 
re-investigated  this  question  of  Authorship,  and  came  to  the  conclusion  that  the 
whole  three  Series  of  Notes  are  Bishop  Cosin's ;  and  thus  he  more  than  sup- 
ports Dr.  NicholPs  original  remark,  which  Mr.  Goode  deems  insufficient,  that 
they  are  "  supposed  to  be  made  from  the  Collections  of  Bishop  Overall,  by  a 
friend  or  chaplain  of  his."  Until,  then,  the  result  of  this  later  enquiry  is  set 
aside  by  fresh  evidence,  the  Notes  may  stil)  be  used  as  poesessing  the  authority 
hitherto  claimed  for  them. 

As  to  Bishop  Cosin's  "Notes"  bping  "of  a  very  different  kind:"  the 
example  which  Mr.  Goode  gives  (p.  855)  will  be  found  above,  p.  138,  where  I 
have  commented  upon  it :  this  Note  is  from  the  2nd  Series,  contained  in  a 
Prayer  Book  of  1638,  and  supposed  to  have  been  written  between  1638  and 
1656 :  the  Note  cited  in  the  text  is  from  the  1st  Series,  which  is  believed  to 
have  been  written  between  1619  and  1638,  and  is  found  in  a  Prayer  Book  of 
1619  :  the  3rd  Series  occurs  in  a  MS.  Book,  and  is  considered  to  be  mostly  before 
1640.  But  the  very  fact  of  the  difference  which  Mr.  Goode  notices  goes  to  shew 
that  the  earlier  Note  was,  all  the  more  probably,  Overall's  ;  especially  if  it  be  the 
case,  as  is  thought,  that  Bishop  Cosin  did  alter  his  opinions  in  some  respects  in 
the  course  of  writing  these  Notes. 


291 

the  signification  of  the  Baptized  or  the  Communicants  :  it 
becomes  necessary,  therefore,  to  inquire  whether  this  is  at 
all  a  new  meaning  or  is  not  rather  a  return  to  the  definite 
Theological  and  Ecclesiastical  sense  in  which  the  term 
has  always  been  employed.  In  order  to  trace  this,  it  will  be 
best  to  examine — I.  The  places  in  which  it  occurs  in  the 
'New  Testament.  They  are  the  following : — 

(a)  Eph.  i.  1.     ". .  . .  to  the  saints  which  are  at  Ephesus,  and  to 
the  faithful  in  Christ  Jesus." 

(b)  Col.  i.  2.     "  To   the  saints  and  faithful  brethren  in  Christ 
which  are  at  Colosse." 

(c)  1  Tim.  iv.  10.     "  . . . .  the  Saviour  of  all  men,  specially  of 
those  that  believe." 

(d)  1  Tim.  iv.  12.     "  . .  be  thou  an  example  of  the  believers. ." 

(e)  1  Tim.  v.  16.  *'  If  any  man  or   woman  that    believeth    have 
widows,  let  them  relieve  them  . . " 

(f)  1  Tim.  vi.  2.  "And  they  that  have  believing  masters  let  them 
....  rather  do  them  service  because  they  are  faithful " 

(g)  2  Tim.  ii.  2.       "  . .  . .    the   same   commit    thou   to  faithful 
men " 

(h)  Titus  i.  6.     " having  faithful  children  .  .  .  ." 

It  will  hardly  be  pretended,  I  suppose,  that  the  first  two 
passages,  (a)  and  (b)   do  not  refer  to  the  entire  body  of  the 
Christians,  i.e»  the  Baptized,  in  Ephesus  and  Colosse  :  nor 
is  there  anything  to  shew  that  the  next  three  (c),  (d)  and  (e) 
are  to  be  taken  in  a  more  exclusive   sense  ;    or   that   the 
"  masters "    spoken  of  in  the  following  passage  (f)  are   the 
good    "  believing "    ones   as    distinguished    from     Christian 
masters  in  general :  the  succeeding  passage  (g)  would  natu- 
rally be  taken  primarily  in  the  more  limited  sense  of  trust- 
worthy,  no  less  than  well-instructed,  Christians ;  though,  if 
they  afterwards  proved  to  be  unreliable  in  their  conduct,  the 
word  "  faithful "  would  still  not  be  inapplicable  in  regard  of 
their  Church-membership:  while,  as  to  the  last  instance  (h), 
it  can  scarcely  be  supposed  that  St.   Paul  meant  to  forbid 
Titus  to   "ordain"  any  as   "elders"  unless   their  children 
were  all  true  and  sincere  Christians,  as  well  as  being  professed 
members  of  the  Church,  i.e.  "  faithful." 

II.  Passages  where  it  is  found  in  the  Ancient  Liturgies* 

1.  LITURGY  OF  S.  MARK. 


(a.)  "  . .  bless  Thy  faithful  and  orthodox  people  ;  increase  them 
to  myriads  of  myriads. .  ." — N cole's  Translation,  p.  10. 

(6.)  "  Bless  Thy  faithful  and  orthodox  people,  them  that  do  Thy 
holy  will,  with  a  thousand  thousand  and  ten  thousand  times  ten 
thousand  blessings." — p.  20. 

2.  LITURGY  OF  ST.  JAMES. 

(c.)  "...  Thou  only  art  holy,  Who  sanctifiest,  and  art  distributed 
to,  Thy  faithful  people  ;  .  .  ." — p.  32. 

(d.)  "...  the  King  of  kings  and  Lord  of  lords,  Christ  our  God, 
cometh  forward  to  be  sacrificed  and  to  be  given  for  food  to  the  faith- 
ful; .  .  ."—p.  40. 

(0.)  "  The  Lord  shall  bless  us,  and  make  us  to  receive  with  the 
pure  tongs  of  our  fingers  the  burning  coal,  and  to  place  it  in  the 
mouths  of  the  faithful,  for  the  purification  and  renewal  of  their 
souls,  and  bodies,  now  and  ever. 

"  O  taste  and  see  that  the  Lord  is  good :  He  that  is  broken,  and 
not  divided,  distributed  to  the  faithful,*  and  not  consumed,  for  the 
remission  of  their  sins  and  eternal  life,  now  and  ever,  and  to  all 
ages/' — p.  60. 

3.  LITURGY  OF  ST.  CLEMENT. 

(/.)  "  And  let  all  THE  FAITHFUL,  as  they  will,  pray  for  them  [the 
Catechumens],  saying,  Lord  have  mercy." — p.  66. 

(g.)  "And  let  the  Deacons  say  :  Pass  forward,  ye  Energumens. 
And  after  this  let  him  exclaim  :  Pray,  ye  that  are  illuminated.  Let 
us,  the  faithful,  all  pray  earnestly  for  them,  that  the  Lord  may  count 

them  worthy,  having  been  initiated  into  the  death  of  Christ 

Thou  that  ....  didst  through  Christ  give  them  the  law  of  spiritual 
regeneration, — do  Thou  Thyself  now  look  upon  the  baptized,  and 
bless  them  and  hallow  them,  and  prepare  them  so  as  to  be  worthy  of 
Thy  spiritual  gift,  and  the  true  adoption  of  Thy  spiritual  mysteries, 
the  gathering  together  with  them  that  are  saved,  through  Christ  our 
Saviour."— p.  70. 

(ft.)  "And  let  the  Deacon  say :  Depart,  ye  that  are  in  penitence. 
And  let  him  add:  Let  none  of  those  that  are  not  able  to  pray  with 
us,  pass  forward  :  let  as  many  as  are  faithful  kneel  with  us." — p.  76. 
(i.)  "And  let  the  Deacon  stand  at  the  doors  of  the  men,  and  the  Sub- 
Deacons  at  those  of  the  women,  that  no  one  may  go  out,  and  that  the 
door  may  not  be  opened,  even  though  it  be  by  one  O/THE  FAITHFUL, 
during  the  time  of  the  anaphora." — p.  76. 

4.  LITURGY  OF  ST.  CHRYSOSTOM. 

(fc.)  "  Deacon.  Let  all  the  Catechumens  depart ;  ....  let  not  any 
of  the  Catechumens —  ;  let  all  the  faithful;  —  . .  . ." — p.  105. 

*  Compare  this  and  2  c.  with  the  following:  "  The  Lamb  of  God  is  broken 
and  distributed  ;  He  that  is  broken  and  not  divided  in  sunder ;  ever  eaten  and 


293 

(I.)  "  The  first  prayer  of  THE  FAITHFUL,  after  the  unfolding  of  the 
Corporal  f — p.  105. 

(w.)     "  The  second  prayer  O/THE  FAITHFUL." — p.  106. 

5.  LITURGY  OF  MALABAR. 

(ft.)  "  ....  Pray,  bearing  in  memory  ....  all  the  faithful  who 
have  departed  from  the  living  and  are  dead  in  the  true  faith." — 
p.  141. 

It  can  hardly  be  questioned,  I  think,  that  in  all  these 
places  (except  5  (n.)  which  refers  to  those  who  died  in  Church 
communion;  and,  perhaps,  I.  (a.)  and  (&.),  which  possibly  include 
THE  BAPTIZED  in  general)  the  word  "faithful"  means  strictly 
THE  COMMUNICANTS  ;  i.e.  not  only  those  who  at  any  given 
Celebration  actually  communicated,  but  also  all  who  were  not 
prevented  from  communicating  by  any  rule  of  Discipline. 
The  expression  (<the  Communicants,"  in  the  Liturgy  of  St. 
Chrysostom,  which  is  plainly  the  synonym  of  "  Thy  faithful 
people"  and  "  the  faithful"  in  the  Liturgy  of  St.  James, 
seems  to  me  to  prove  this  :  while  that  (unless  in  the  instances 
I  have  excepted)  the  term  "the  faithful"  has  this  limi- 
tation, appears,  also,  to  be  shewn  by  the  exhortation  to  them, 
in  the  Liturgy  of  St.  Clement,  to  "  pray  earnestly"  for  "  the 
illuminated,"  i.e.  " the  baptized"  as  the  context  shews. 

III.    The  testimony  of  Ecclesiastical  Writers  or  Historians. 

And  here  it  will  be  quite  sufficient  to  quote  Bingham,  as 
his  words  do  but  profess  to  sum  up  the  testimony  of  autho- 
rities whom  he  names.  Thus  he  says,  "  in  all  which  accounts" 
it  is  "  proper  to  be  remarked  :" — 

"  That  the  name  believers,  UKTTO},  and  Fideles,  is  here  taken,  in  a 
more  strict  sense,  only  for  one  order  of  Christians, — the  believing  or 
baptized  laity,  in  contradistinction  to  the  clergy  and  the  Cate- 
chumens, the  two  other  orders  of  men  in  the  Church.  And  in  this 
sense,  the  words  riierro*  and  Fideles  are  commonly  used  in  the 
ancient  Liturgies,  and  Canons,  to  distinguish  those  THAT  WERE 

BAPTIZED,    AND    ALLOWED    TO    PARTAKE    OF    THE     HOLY    MYSTERIES, 

nerer  consumed,  but  sanctifying  THE  COMMUNICANTS." — Lit.  of  S.  Chrysostom, 
p.  121. 

It  is  worth  while  to  notice  also  this  sentence  as  illustrative  of  the  following 
passage  in  a  Rubric  at  the  end  of  the  Communion  Office  in  the  Prayer  Book  of 
1549:—".  .  .  every  one  [i.e.,  of  the  Wafer  Breads]  shall  be  divided  in  two 
pieces,  at  the  least,  or  more,  by  the  discretion  of  the  minister,  and  so  distributed. 
And  men  must  not  think  less  to  be  received  in  part  than  in  the  whole,  but  in 
each  of  them  the  whole  body  of  our  Saviour  Jesu  Christ." 


294 

from  the  Catechumens,  whence  came  that  ancient  distinction  of  the 
service  of  the  Church  into  the  Missa  Catechumenorum,  and  Missa  Fi- 
delium\  .  .  ." — Eccl.  Antiq.,  Bk.  I.,  c.  3,  §  3. 

"  The  n«<rro*,  or  Fideles,  being  such  as  were  baptized,  and  thereby 
made  complete  and  perfect  Christians,  were,  upon  that  account,  dig- 
nified with  several  titles  of  honour  and  marks  of  distinction  above 
the  Catechumens  :"  viz.,  QuT^optvm,  The  Illuminate  ;  *Ot 
The  Initiated;  T/Ae»o.,  The  Perfect;— Ib.  c.  4,  §  §  1,  2,  3. 

"  All  these  names  (and  many  others  might  be  added,  which  are 
obvious  to  every  reader,  such  as  Saints,  and  Sons  of  God,  &c.)  were 
peculiar  titles  of  honour  and  respect,  given  only  to  those  who  were 
HJCTTO*,  or  Believers." — Ib.  §  4. 

"And  hence  it  was  that,  correspondent  to  these  names,  the  Fideles 
had  their  peculiar  privileges  in  the  Church  above  the  Catechumens. 
For  first,  it  was  their  sole  prerogative  to  partake  of  the  Lord's 
Table,  and  communicate  with  one  another  in  the  symbols  of  Christ's 
body  and  blood  at  the  altar ....  ." — Ib.  §  5. 

"  Another  of  their  prerogatives  above  Catechumens  was,  to  stay 
and  join  with  the  minister  in  all  the  prayers  of  the  Church,  which 
the  Catechumens  were  not  allowed  to  do ;  ...  ." — Ib.  §  6. 

"  More  particularly  the  use  of  the  Lord's  prayer  was  the  sole  pre- 
rogative of  the  IIi0To«,  or  Believers;  for  then  it  was  no  crime,  or  ar- 
gument of  weakness,  or  want  of  the  spirit,  to  use  it ;  but  an  honour 
and  privilege  of  the  most  consummate  and  perfect  Christians  .  .  ." — 
Ib.  §  7, 

"  Lastly,  They  were  admitted  to  be  auditors  of  all  discourses 
made  in  the  Church,  even  those  that  treated  of  the  most  abstruse 
points  and  profound  mysteries  of  the  Christian  religion  ;  which  the 

Catechumens  were  strictly  prohibited  from  hearing when  the 

Catechumens  were  dismissed,   then  they  discoursed  more  openly  of 

their  mysteries  before  the  Fideles and  in  these,  and  the  like 

privileges,  consisted  their  prerogative  above  the  Catechumens." — 
Ib.  §  8. 

No  one  can  deny  that  the  baptized  have  as  full  privileges 
in  the  Modern,  as  they  had  in  the  Ancient  Church. 

It  must  be  borne  in  mind,  too,  that  this  Greek  word  n»aro* 
(of  which  Fideles  is  the  Latin  equivalent)  is  the  Original  in  all 
the  places  cited  from  the  New  Testament  and  from  the  An- 
cient Liturgies. 

IV.  The  places  in  which  the  term  has  been  or  is  employed  in 

the  English  Prayer  Book. 

These  will  be  most  readily  seen  and  compared  in  the  fol- 
lowing Tabular  collection  of  them  from  all  the  Editions,  to 
gether  with  the  Latin  translation  in  Queen  Elizabeth's  Book 
of  1560. 


295 

iMJI   pi 
a^sl   !„* 

.    -    B."V3         £*» 

Is  £3«£ll 

{JiHv£H<i 

IsNifS'lc* 

pjlsl-se-s 

"   S,8-33 


.  s|=e- 

„  -    o  a  5 

<U  /•>     O>     0> 

•£          (— )    >     o 


a,  quaesumus 
tuorum 


«    C 

?1 

Q; 


&c. 
corpore 


orporata 
cta  com 


tico 

quod 


o   o 

da 
.32. 

u 


PL,  3  •"-! 

1:1 


II 

aS 

II 

il 
\\ 

CT1 


s, 
fru 


onus  huj 
titia  &  foe 
tur  :"  &c. 


".       cfeJ 


rfl      C    ' 

be  ea 

.2r  o 


:     s 

,  JS-TS, 


C    '>      fi 

ea    ^  .S 


S  <u  ^  o  o 

^§2§l 


§ 
§ 

I) 


ul  God,  o 
udable  se 


& 

t 

£ 
2 


£ 

o 

6 

I 


o  ff& 

.SI'S 


ul  pe 


ll 


e  My 
ul  pe 


ta 

^2 


^. 
*5  «^ 


*< 

NT         A 

£*o 

?! 

ra  fl 

II 

fl 

• 
i 

P 

H 

f|i| 

B 

p§    O 

'o  ** 

^S  2 

Ss 

.S 

rC*^3 

^     -4J 

Q^  r~™i 

•<  s 

rt  oT 

BQ 

fH    ^ 

^C    1    **   w 

T^  o 

-          § 

**     CC1 

o 

o> 

*•       Q> 

^       ™  1^  - 

8 

•** 

T3 

(X 

S 

^O  I-H    O 

j 

$ 

1 

I 

j_ 

CJ 

i 

-o 

3 

q 
5 

il 

1 
J 

if 
II 

a 

P 

9 

C    " 

1 

s 

0 

o 

Q 

1 

<M 

O 

«; 

^  prj 

^. 

3 

i 

'o  rt 

^ 

£ 

to 

^ 

to 

9 

11 

CO 

CS 

§ 

o 
AH 

PQ 

296 

Now  it  is  observable  that  every  one  of  these  passages 
(except  that  out  of  the  Burial  Service)  is  from  The  Com- 
munion  Office,  i.e.  The  Liturgy;  for  the  Collects  are,  of 
course,  a  part  of  that  Office.  In  all  reason  therefore  we 
ought  to  interpret  the  word  "faithful"  according  to  con- 
tinuous Ecclesiastical  usage,  unless  anything  has  been  any- 
where said  to  imply  the  contrary ;  so  far,  however,  is  this 
from  being  the  case,  that  everything  we  know  about  the 
history  of  the  English  Liturgy,  whether  as  first  compiled  in 
1549  or  as  subsequently  Revised,  proves  that  the  intention  all 
along  was  to  make  it  embody  the  mind  of  Primitive  An- 
tiquity, especially  as  set  forth  in  the  Primitive  Liturgies  so 
far  as  they  were  then  known,  or  were  embodied  in  the  USES 
which  had  long  been  familiar  in  this  Kingdom. 

The  language  of  the  five  Collects  quoted  shews  that "  the  faith- 
faithful  "  there  spoken  of  are  they  who,  being  baptized,  are  Ec- 
clesiastically capable  of  receiving  those  Gifts  of  God  which  are 
designed  to  procure  for  them  the  various  Benefits  of  His  Grace 
supplicated  in  the  Collects  themselves ;  possessing  this  capacity 
they  are  admitted  (according  to  the  Discipline  of  the  Church 
as  received  and  exercised  in  this  English  portion  of  it)  to 
that  COMMUNION  which  is  a  Divinely  appointed  means  of 
conveying  the  requisite  Gifts  :  but  a  capacity  to  receive  a 
Gift  by  no  means  necessarily  implies  a  disposition,  to  profit  by 
that  Gift :  and  as,  in  the  case  now  under  consideration,  it  is 
obviously  impossible  that  any  exercise  of  Discipline  could 
absolutely  declare  the  existence  of  such  disposition,  so  the 
terms  of  a  Liturgy  must  necessarily  be  limited  to  that  capacity 
of  which  alone  the  Church  can  be  cognizant.  Hence,  as  it 
seems  to  me,  the  necessity  for  those  words  of  the  "Exhortation" 
given  "at  the  time  of  the  celebration  of  the  Communion'  which 
emphatically  point  out  the  distinction  between  Sacramental  and 
Spiritual  participation  of  "  that  holy  Sacrament ;"  asserting 
that "  as  the  benefit  is  great"  to  those  who  (t  receive"  It  with  "  a 
true  penitent  heart  and  lively  faith  ....  so  is  the  danger 
great"  to  them  who  "  receive  the  same  unworthily" — because 
the  former  "  spiritually  eat  the  Flesh  of  Christ  and  drink 
His  Blood,"  whereas  the  latter  eat  and  drink  ....  damna- 


297 

tion  [i.e.  judgment],  not  considering  the  Lord's  Body"  ;  inas- 
much as  they  "  presume  to  eat  of  that  bread  and  drink  of 
that  cup"  which  is  "  the  holy  Communion  [i.e.  communica- 
tion] of"  It.  Hence,  again,  the  need  for  that  most  expressive 
"SO"  in  the  Prayer  of  Access  (found  practically,  too,  in  the 
Ancient  Liturgies*)  which  it  is  impossible  to  gloss  over  as 
though  it  was  not  designed  to  mean  that  there  is  a  way  "  to 
eat  the  Flesh  of"  God's  "  dear  Son,  and  to  drink  His 
Blood"  in  which  the  Benefits  sought  for  by  that  Prayer 
cannot  be  obtained. 

Again,  take  the  sentence  above  quoted  from  the  2nd  Post- 
communion  prayer;  it  can  only  be,  as  I  think,  by  entirely 
ignoring  the  old  Ecclesiastical  sense  of  the  words  that  the 
"  all  faithful  people,"  who  are  there  said  to  be  the  "  mystical 
Body"  of  Christ,  can  be  limited  to  those  really  pious  and 
godly  ones  of  the  Church  of  whom  it  could  scarcely  be 
doubted  that  they  "  be  meet  partakers  of  these  Holy  Mys- 
teries." 

The  passage  from  the  Burial  Service  may  appear  at  first 
sight  to  present  an  exception  to  that  meaning  of  the  words 
"  the  faithful"  which  I  am  here  alleging  to  be  the  true  one. 

*  Liturgy  of  8.  Mark.—".  .  .  Enlighten  our  soul  with  the  divine  rays  of 
Thy  Holy  Spirit,  that  we,  being  filled  with  the  knowledge  of  Thee,  may  wor- 
thily participate  in  the  good  things  that  are  set  before  us,  the  spotless  Body  and 
precious  Blood  of  Thine  only-begotten  Son,  our  Lord  and  Saviour  Jesus  Christ; 
.  .  "—Neale's  Transl,  p.  26. 

Liturgy  of  S.James. — "Priest,  (before  communicating)  .  .  .  do  Thou,  who 
art  a  compassionate  God,  make  me  worthy  by  Thy  grace  to  communicate  without 
condemnation  in  the  holy  Body  and  precious  Blood,  for  the  remission  of  sins, 
and  eternal  life."— p.  61. 

Liturgy  of  S.  Clement. — "And  let  the  Deacon  say,  .  .  .  Having  received  the 
precious  Body  and  precious  Blood  of  Christ,  ...  let  us  beseech  Him  that  they 
may  not  be  to  us  to  judgment,  but  to  salvation;  .  .  ." — p.  90. 

Liturgy  of  S.  Chrysostom. — "  The  Priest  meanwhile  saith  secretly,  .  ,  .  make 
us  worthy  to  partake  of  Thy  heavenly  and  terrible  mysteries  of  this  holy  and 
spiritual  Table,  with  a  pure  conscience,  for  the  remission  of  sins,  forgiveness  of 
transgressions,  participation  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  inheritance  of  the  kingdom  of 
heaven,  boldness  of  access  to  Thee :  not  to  judgment  nor  to  condemnation." — 
p.  119. 

Liturgy  of  Malabar. — "  The  Priest  saith :  .  .  .  make  us  also  worthy,  by  Thy 
love,  that  in  all  pureness  and  holiness  we  may  receive  the  gift :  and  that  it  may 
not  be  unto  us  for  judgment  or  vengeance,  but  for  love  and  piety  and  the  re- 
mission of  sins,  and  resurrection  from  the  dead,  and  eternal  life  :  .  .  ." — p.  154. 
Other  passages  will  be  found  at  pp.  24,  25,  29,  61,  89,  119,  122,  154. 

Q  Q 


298 

It  will,  perhaps,  be  said  that — granting  the  term,  as  elsewhere 
employed  in  the  Prayer  Book,  to  have  the  comprehensive 
sense  contended  for  ;  it  must  he  taken  in  a  more  limited 
sense  here,  where  "  the  faithful "  are  pronounced  to  be  "in 
joy  and  felicity  ;"  and  therefore  it  may  have  the  like  con- 
tracted meaning  in  the  Catechism. 

But,  it  seems  to  me,  that  the  expression  as  here  employed, 
so  far  from  having  a  meaning  at  variance  with  its  use  in  the 
other  places  cited  from  the  Prayer  Book,  is  entirely  in  ac- 
cordance with  them ;  because  it  is  no  more  limited  than  they 
are  to  those  whom  I  suppose  Mr.  Goode  includes  in  the  term 
(( true  believers."  The  way  in  which  it  is  used  in  the  Liturgy 
of  Malabar  *  (See  5  (n.)  p.  293)  supports  this  opinion. 

A  reference  to  the  Table  (p.  2!) 5)  will  shew  that  the  term 
was  first  inserted  in  this  Office  at  the  last  Review  (1662) ; 
and  was  then  substituted  for  the  expression  "  the  Elected  " 
which  had  been  used  up  to  that  time  in  all  the  Reformed 
Prayer  Books,  and  which  was  taken  from  the  Salisbury 
Manual. f  Now,  though  no  other  key  is  furnished  to  the 
meaning  of  the  words  than  the  context  of  the  Prayer,  it  can 
hardly  be  supposed  that  it  was  used  in  a  narrower  sense  than 
the  words  "  saints,"  "  faithful,"  "  believers,"  quoted  at 
p.  291  from  the  Apostolical  Epistles,  or  than  the  word 
"elect"  as  applied  to  these  persons  in  any  of  those  same 
Epistles  (Coloss.  iii.  12;  2  Tim.  ii.  10;  Tit.  i.  1)  or  to  those 
"  strangers"  whom  St.  Peter  addresses  (1  Pet.  i.  1  &  2). 

Yet,  whether  this  be  or  be  not  accepted  as  the  true  ex- 
planation of  "  the  Elected"  we  are  not  left  without  a  guide 
to  the  meaning  of  "  the  faithful"  ;  for,  when  the  former  term 
was  exchanged  for  the  latter,  a  new  Rubric  was  prefixed  to 
the  Office,  distinctly  limiting  its  use  by  saying,  "  Here  it  is 


*  The  same  idea  is  preserved  in  the  following  passages. 

LITURGY  OF  ST.  MARK. — "  Give  rest  to  ....  every  spirit  that  has  de- 
parted in  the  faith  of  Christ.  .  .  ."—Neale's  Tram.  p.  17. 

LITURGY  OF  ST.  CHRYSOSTOM. — "  And  further  we  offer  to  Thee  this  reasonable 
service  on  behalf  of  those  who  have  departed  in  the  faith.  .  .  ." — p.  117. 

f  "  Deus,  apud  quern  spiritus  mortuorum  vivunt,  et  in  quo  electorum  animae 
deposito  carnis  oneie  plena  felicitate  Isetantur,"  &c.— Palmer,  Orig.  Lit.  p.  237. 


299 

to  be  noted,  that  the  Office  ensuing  is  not  be  used  for  any  that 
die  unbaptized,  or  excommunicate)  or  have  laid  violent  hands 
upon  themselves."  So,  then,  while  by  not  using  the  Office  in 
these  three  cases  the  Church  of  England  would  abstain  from 
any  judgment  upon  them,  and  would  leave  them  to  the  jus- 
tice and  mercy  of  God,  she  intended  to  regard  all  others  as 
"the  faithful"  and  so  partakers  of  "joy  and  felicity" — 
varying,  we  may  well  believe,  with  the  varied  degrees  of 
faith  and  holiness  in  which  they  departed  this  life. 

It  will  be  no  answer  to  this  view  to  say — that  this  Office  is 
often  used  for  those  who  ought  to  be  among  the  "  excom- 
municate ;"  for  the  Office,  as  revised  in  1662,  contemplated  the 
continued  use — or  rather,  the  stricter  application — of  that  DIS- 
CIPLINE enjoined  in  the  Laws  of  the  Church — Laws  of  whose 
existence  the  Canons  of  1603-4  alone  bear  abundant  proof; 
however  much,  whether  from  necessity,  or  unfitness,  or  other 
causes,  they  have,  to  a  great  extent,  fallen  into  abeyance. 
It  follows,  therefore,  that  the  Church  meant  to  regard  as 
"  the  faithful "  all  validly  baptized  persons  (except  such  as 
" laid  violent*  hands  upon  themselves")  who  had  not  been 
severed  from  her  Communion  by  a  "sentence  of  excom- 
munication pronounced  against  them  "  (Can.  65)  by  an  Ec- 

*  I  must  confess  myself  unable  to  agree  with  those  who  think  that  "  violent 
hands"  must  be  limited  to  cases  pronounced  by  a  Coroner's  Jury  to  be  felo  de 
se :  it  is  no  want  of  charity,  I  trust,  which  compels  me  to  believe  that  the 
Church  of  England  did  not  contemplate  in  this  Rubric  any  distinction  between 
such  cases  and  those  in  which  a  verdict  of  "  temporary  insanity"  is  given,  but 
meant  to  forbid  the  use  of  the  Office  in  both,  though  not  the  interment  of  the 
latter  in  consecrated  ground:  Wheatley  (Com.  Prayer,  p.  481)  supports  this 
view :  Shakspeare,  too,  represents  this  as  the  rule  of  his  day—  a  rule  from 
which,  as  it  seems  to  me,  the  Church  of  England  has  not  in  theory  departed : 
Ophelia,  though  "  crowner's  quest  law"  gave  her  "  Christian  burial,"  for  else  "  She 
should  in  ground  unsanctified  have  lodg'd,"  was  only  buried  with  "  maimed  rites;" 
for  when  Laertes  asked,  "What  ceremony  more?''  the  Priest  answered,  "Her 
obsequies  have  been  as  far  enlarg'd  as  we  have  warranty:  Her  death  was 
doubtful ;"  (Hamlet,  Act  V.) 

No  doubt  there  are  cases  in  which  the  omission  of  the  Office  would  be  a' great 
trial  to  the  friends  of  the  deceased;  but  then  it  should  be  remembered  (and 
would  so  far  be  a  consolation)  that,  while  its  omission  can  be  no  injury  to  souls 
so  passing  out  of  this  life  (for  God  is  their  Judge),  it  might  have  a  most  salutary 
effect  in  deterring  from  self-destruction  others  for  whom  no  sound  plea  could  be 
urged.  It  is  to  be  feared  that  (so-called)  charitable  verdicts  and  charitable  use  of 
the  Burial  Office  in  cases  of  suicide  may  have  lessened  the  dread  of  the  act  itself, 
and  so  have  encouraged  its  more  frequent  commission. 


300 

clesiastical  Judge  :  the  68th  Canon,  treating  of  this  impedi- 
ment to  Burial,  says  that  "  No  Minister  shall  refuse "  to 
bury,  "except  the  party  deceased  were  denounced  excom- 
municated majori  excommunicatione,  for  some  grievous  and 
notorious  crime,  and  no  man  able  to  testify  of  his  repentance." 
But  it  is  clear,  from  an  inspection  of  her  Laws,  that  such  a 
punishment  would  not  be  lightly  inflicted  even  for  those 
greater  offences  to  which  it  was  limited  ;  and  as,  what  would 
be  called,  "  truly  religious  people" — those  bringing  forth 
"  some  sixty,  some  an  hundred-fold" — ever  bear  but  a  small 
proportion  to  ordinary  Christians — the  yielders  of  "  thirty- 
fold,  so  "  the  faithful"  must  of  necessity  have  a  meaning  suf- 
ficiently large  to  comprehend  the  least  and  the  feeblest  of 
those  who  are  in  any  degree  willing  to  do  Christ  service,  as 
members  of  the  Household  of  Faith,  however  much  hindered 
by  causes  which  must  be  remitted  to  that  "Master"  to  Whom 
each  "  standeth  or  falleth." 

Moreover,  unless  the  Liturgy  is  to  be  construed  by  a 
different  rule  from  the  Articles,  the  XIXth  Article  plainly 
supports  the  sense  here  alleged  to  be  the  true  meaning  of  the 
term  "  the  faithful "  in  the  places  cited  from  the  Prayer  Book 
Offices,  when  it  says  that  "  The  visible  Church  of  Christ  is  a 
congregation  of  faithful  men ; "  and  if  there  could  well  be  a 
doubt  of  the  comprehensive  meaning  of  the  word  here,  the  last 
clause  disposes  of  it  by  saying  that  certain  portions  of  this 
"congregation  of  faithful  men"  "have  erred  ....  not  only 
in  their  living  and  manner  of  Ceremonies,  but  also  in  matters 
of  Faith."  Not  the  less  strongly,  though  even  more  clearly 
for  the  present  argument,  the  XXXIIIrd  Article  teaches  that 
every  one  who  is  in  "  the  unity  of  the  Church  "  must  be 
reckoned  in  "  the  whole  multitude  of  the  faithful;'  and  "  that 
person"  is  evidently  accounted  to  be  in  such  unity  who  has 
not  been  "  rightly  cut  off  from"  it  "  by  open  denunciation  of 
the  Church:"  so  that  here  a  distinct  meaning  is  authoritatively 
assigned  to  the  term  "  the  faithful"  by  making  it  the  equiva- 
lent of  those  who  are  not  formally  "  excommunicate" 

Besides,  the  analogy  of  other  similar  words  which  are  used 


301 

in  the  Prayer  Book,  serves  to  sustain  that  meaning  of  the  ex- 
pression "  the  faithful"  to  which  Mr.  Goode  demurs :  thus — 
"  make  Thy  chosen  people  joyful"  (Matins,  $•<?.) ;  "  all  estates 
of  men  in  Thy  Holy  Church''  (Coll.  Good  Friday}-,  "the 
prayers  of  Thy  humble  servants"  (Coll.  IQth  Sund.  aft.  Trin.}\ 
"Thine  elect"  (Coll.  for  All  Saints  Day)\  "Good  people, 
these  are  they  whom  we  purpose,"  &c.  (Ord.  of  Priests) 
— these,  one  and  all,  refer  to  Christians  in  their  corporate 
character  ;  yet  they  cannot  but  imply  the  same  truth  which 
the  xxvith  Article  expresses  when  declaring  that  "in  the 
visible  Church  the  evil  be  ever  mingled  with  the  good." 

It  rests  with  those  who  deny  that  the  sense  here  contended 
for  is  the  true  sense  of  the  words  "  the  faithful"  in  the 
Catechism,  to  shew  that  in  that  Formulary  they  were  de- 
signed to  have  a  meaning  wholly  different  from  what  I  have 
argued  must,  in  all  consistency,  be  regarded  as  the  meaning 
of  "  the  faithful"  in  the  other  instances  cited  from  the  Prayer 
Book — -fideles  (TTJOTO*)  being  in  every  case  the  Latin  equiva- 
lent, just  as  in  the  examples  previously  quoted  from  Eccle- 
siastical Antiquity. 

At  p.  72  of  the  Letter  (after  quoting  a  passage  from 
Bishop  Burnet  to  shew  that  it  was  "  chiefly  by  Gawden's 
means "  the  Declaration  on  Kneeling  was  restored  to  the 
Communion  Office  in  the  Book  of  1662,)  I  said  that  I  was 
unable  then  to  state  whether  there  was  "  any  evidence  to  shew 
that  Gawden  did  not  hold  high  views  of  the  Real  Presence, 
though  denying  Transubstantiation :  "  since  that  time  I  have 
collected  what  evidence  I  could  procure  respecting  his 
Eucharistic  belief;  and  this  I  now  proceed  to  furnish. 

But,  first,  it  will  be  well  to  produce  another  extract  from 
Bishop  Burnet,  because  it  gives  some  additional  information  as 
to  the  support  which  Bishop  Gawden  received  in  proposing  the 
restoration  of  the  Declaration  :  the  passage  occurs  in  the  MS. 
volume*  of  his  "  Own  Time,"  now  in  the  British  Museum, 
and  is  as  follows : — 

*  Lord  Macaulay,  referring  to  the  MS.,  says,  "  These  memoirs  will  be  found 
in  a  manuscript  volume,  which  is  part  of  the  Harleian  Collection,  and  is  num- 


302 

"  There  were  some  small  Alterations  made  in  ye  Book  of  Common 
Prayer,  together  with  some  additions),  the  most  important  was  yl 
concerning  ye  kneeling  in  ye  sacrament,  wch  had  been  putt  in  ye 
Second  Book  of  Comon  Prayer  set  out  by  Edward  ye  6th,  but  was 
left  out  by  Queen  Elizabeth,  and  was  now  by  Bishop  Gawden's  means 
put  in  at  ye  end  of  ye  office  of  ye  Communion.  Sheldon  opposed 
it,  but  Gawden  was  seconded  by  Southampton  and  Morley.  The 
Duke  complained  of  this  much  to  me,  as  a  puritannical  thing,  and 
spake  severely  of  Gawden,  as  a  popular  man,  for  his  procuring  it  to 
be  added  (tho*  I  have  been  told  y1  it  was  used  in  King  James's 
time)." — Harleian  MSS.,  6584. 

Bishop  Gawden  is  called  by  Chalmers  (Biog.  Diet.)  a  Pre- 
late "  of  more  fame  than  character:"  certainly  he  does  seem 
in  some  degree  to  have  been  a  time-server.  The  Biog.  Bri- 
tannica  states,  "  We  are  assured  that  Gawden  took  the  cove- 
nant, notwithstanding  he  seems  to  deny  it,*  and  published,  in 
1643,  certain  doubts  and  scruples  of  conscience  about  taking 
the  Solemn  League  and  Covenant :  he  was  chosen  one  of  the 

bered  6584.  They  are,  in  fact,  the  first  outlines  of  a  great  part  of  Burnet's  His- 
tory of  his  Own  Times.  The  dates  at  which  the  different  portions  of  this  most 
curious  and  interesting  book  were  composed  are  marked.  Almost  the  whole  was 
written  before  the  death  of  Mary.  Burnet  did  not  begin  to  prepare  his  History 
of  William's  reign  for  the  press  till  ten  years  later.  By  that  time  his  opinions, 
both  of  men  and  things,  had  undergone  great  changes.  The  value  of  the  rough 
draft  is  therefore  very  great :  for  it  contains  some  facts  which  he  afterwards 
thought  it  advisable  to  suppress,  and  some  judgments  which  he  afterwards  saw 
reason  to  alter.  I  must  own  that  I  generally  like  his  first  thoughts  best.  When- 
ever his  History  is  reprinted,  it  ought  to  be  carefully  collated  with  this  volume." 
—Hist,  of  England,  Vol.  iii.,  p.  19,  Note.  Hearne's  o'pinion  of  Burnet's  History  of 
his  Own  Time  (which,  however,  does  not  make  the  Bishop  an  incompetent  witness 
to  facts)  is  thus  expressed : — "  Mar.  19,  1733-4.  Learning  is  sunk  so  very  low, 
that  I  am  most  certainly  informed,  that  nothing  now  is  hardly  read  but  Burnet's 
romance  or  libel,  called  by  him,  The  History  of  his  Own  Time.  'Tisreadby  men, 
women,  and  children.  Indeed  it  is  the  common  table-book  for  ladies,  as  well  as 
gentlemen,  especially  such  as  are  friends  to  the  Revolution  scheme." — Hearnianat 
ii.,  808.  See  also  p.  812. 

*  The  following  passage  from  Baxter's  Life  seems  to  imply  that  Gawden  did 
take  the  Covenant,  though  with  certain  expressed  or  understood  qualifications 
which  satisfied  his  own  scruples : — 

"  §  362.  I  come  now  to  the  non-subscribers'  particular  scruples,  which  are 
sucb  as  these. 

"  I.  They  say,  That  all  men  confessing  that  an  oath  or  vow  is  obligatory,  they 
must  see  good  proof  that  this  particular  vow  is  not  so  before  they  can  exempt  it 
from  the  common  force  of  vows  ;  but  such  proof  they  have  never  seen  from  Mr. 
Fullwood,  Mr.  Stikman,  Dr.  Gauden,  or  any  that  hath  attempted  it,  and  on  whom 
it  is  incumbent ;  but  rather  admire  that  men  of  so  great  judgment  and  tenderness 
of  conscience  should  ever  be  satisfied  with  such  halting  arguments ;  which  they 
had  long  ago  more  fully  confuted,  if  the  law  had  not  forbidden  them." — p.  410, 
fol.  1696 


303 

Assembly  of  Divines  who  met  at  Westminster  in  1643  ;"  but 
appears  not  to  have  sat  in  it,  as  his  name  was  "  struck  off  the 
list,  and  Mr.  Thomas  Goodwin  put  into  his  room." 

The  earliest  publication  of  his  which  I  have  met  with  is 
intitled — 

"  It  foe,  Aa*£pt>«. 

"  Ecclesice  Anglicans  Suspiria. 

"The  TEARS,  SIGHS,  COMPLAINTS  and  PRAYERS  of  the  CHURCH 
OF  ENGLAND  :  setting  forth  Her  former  Constitution,  compared 
with  Her  present  Condition  ;  also  The  visible  Causes,  and  probable 
Cures,  of  Her  Distempers.  In  iv.  Books.  By  JOHN  GAUDEN, 
D.D.  of  Backing  in  Essex.  Jer.  8.  28.  « Is  there  no  Balm  in 
Gilead  ?  is  there  no  Physician  there  ?  Why  then  is  not  the  health 
of  the  Daughter  of  my  people  recovered  ?' 

"  LONDON,  Printed  by  J.  G.  for  R.  Royston,  at  the  Angel  in  Ivie- 
Lane,  1659." 

The  following  passages  shew  what  were  his  opinions  at 
this  time. 

"  Chap.  xvi.  Irreconcilable  differences  between  Reformed  Truths 
and  Romish  Errors,  which  are  as  manifest  and  obstinate. 

"This  is  their  so  great,  rude  and  sacrilegious  maiming  of  the 
Lord's  Supper,  by  their  partial  communicating  of  the  Bread  only  to 
the  people,  without  the  Cup  ;  then  their  strange  racking  of  Christians 
Faith  against  all  sense  and  reason,  nay  beyond  all  scripture-phrase 
and  proportion  of  Sacramental  expressions,  or  mysterious  predica- 
tions, to  believe  they  doe  not  receive  so  much  as  Bread,  but  another 
substance  under  the  accidents  and  shews  of  Bread. 

"What  learned  Romanist  can  deny,  but  that  both  Clergy  and  Laity 
did,  for  above  a  thousand  years  receive  the  Lord's  Supper  in  both 
kinds,  after  the  constant  use  of  all  Primitive  Churches,  the  Apostles 
Practise,  and  Christ's  Institution.  Nor  is  there  anymore  doubt,  but 
that  the  ancient  Churches  received  those  Holy  Mysteries  with  an 
high  veneration  indeed  of  that  Body  and  Blood  of  Christ,  which  was 
thereby  signified,  conveyed  and  sealed  to  them  in  the  truth  and 
merits  of  the  Passion ;  but  yet  without  any  Divine  Adoration  of  the 
Bread  and  Wine,  or  any  imagination  that  theywere  transubstantiated 
from  their  own  seeming  Essence  and  Nature  to  the  very  Body  and 
Blood  of  Christ.  Which  fancy  of  (Metemsomasis)  changing  the 
Body  and  Substance  of  Sacramental  signes  into  the  bodily  substance 
of  the  Thing  signified  and  represented  by  them  (as  the  incomparable 
Primate  of  Ireland  hath  observed  out  of  Irenceus)  began  from  the 
juglings  of  one  Marcus  a  Greek  Impostor,  or  jugling  Presbyter,  who 
using  long  Prayers  at  the  Celebration  of  the  Eucharist,  had  some 
device  to  make  the  Cup  and  Wine  appear  of  a  purple  or  red  and 


304 

bloody  colour,  that  the  people  might  think  at  his  invocation  the 
Grace  from  above  did  distill  Blood  into  the  Cup.  After  this  the 
imagination  spred  from  Greeks  to  Latins,  by  popular  and  credulous 
fancies,  promoted  much  by  one  Paschasius  Radbertus,  who  in  a 
legendary  spirit  tells  us  of  Flesh  and  Blood,  of  a  Lamb  and  a  little 
Child,  of  appearing  to  those  Receivers  that  were  doubtfull  of  Christ's 
corporall  presence  ;  so  he  tells  of  limbs  and  little  fingers  found  in  the 
hands  and  mouths  of  Communicants.  From  hence  Damascen  among 
the  Greeks,  and  P.  Lumbard  among  the  Latins,  carried  on  this 
credulity,  or  vain  curiosity,  using  all  their  wits  to  make  good  this 
strange  and  impossible  transmutation  of  disparate  subjects  and  sub- 
stances :  in  which  having  nothing  from  Sense  or  Reason,  Nature  or 
Philosophy,  from  Scripture-Analogy,  or  Sacramentall  and  Typicall 
predications,  frequent  in  Scripture  (as  the  Lamb  is  called  the 
Passeover,  so  Christ  our  Passeover;  Christ  the  Rock,  Vine,  Door ; 
these  drie  Bones  are  the  house  of  Israel ;  the  seven  ears  of  corne  are 
seven  years,  &c.  the  Tree  is  thou,  0  King)  to  prove  the  Miracle, 
they  flie  to  absolute  omnipotency,  whether  God  will  or  no,  and  shut 
out  all  reasoning  from  Sense,  Philosophy,  Scripture.  Nor  do  they 
regard  ancient  Fathers  and  Councils :  all  which,  though  highly  and 
justly  magnifying  the  great  Mystery,  yea,  and  the  Elements  conse- 
crated, as  related  to  and  united  with  the  Body  of  Christ,  as  Signs 
and  Seals  of  its  Reality,  Truth,  use  and  merit  to  a  sinner ;  yet 
generally  tbey  hold  them  to  be  substantially  and  physically  Bread 
and  Wine,  but  sacramentally,  relatively  or  representatively  (onely) 
the  Body  and  Blood  of  Christ :  as  the  Council  of  Constantinople 
anno  754  consisting  of  338  Bishops,  did  affirm,  the  Bread  to  be  the 
Body  of  Christ,  not  QIHTSI,  but  §s<rn,  not  in  substance,  but  in  resem- 
blance, use  and  appointment.  Which  Doctrine,  as  Catholic  was 
maintained  to  the  Emperor  Carolus  Calvus,  by  Bertrannus  or 
Ratrannus,  anno  880,  which  was  also  maintained  in  England  by 
Johannes  Scotus  in  King  Alfreds  time,  untill  Lanfranlcs  days,  anno 
1060,  who  condemned  that  Book  of  Scotus  about  the  Sacrament 
agreeable  to  the  opinion  of  Bertram  ;  whose  Homily  expressing  his 
judgement  at  large  against  Transubstantiation,  was  formerly  read 
publicly  in  Churches  on  Easter  day,  in  order  to  prepare  men  for  the 
right  understanding  and  due  receiving  the  Lords  Supper. 

"  Nor  did  the  Doctrine  of  Transubstantiation  obtain  in  the  Church, 
untill  the  year  1225  when  Pope  Innocent  the  third  in  the  Council  of 
Lateran  published  it  for  an  Oracle,  That  the  Body  and  Blood  of 
Jesus  Christ  are  truly  contained  under  the  forms  of  Bread  and  Wine, 
the  Bread  being  transubstatiated  into  the  Body  of  Christ,  and  the 
Wine  into  the  Blood  of  Christ,  by  the  power  of  God. 

"  Hence  followed  the  invention  of  Concomitancy,  which  presuming 
that  the  Communicant  received  under  the  accidents  and  shew  of 
Bread,  the  whole  Body  of  Christ,  and  so  his  Blood,  it  was  judged 
rather  superfluous  than  necessary  (yea  and  lesse  safe  in  some  respects) 


305 

for  the  Lay-people  to  receive  the  Cup  or  Wine,  and  Blood  of  Christ 
apart,  as  he  instituted,  and  the  Church  of  old,  even  the  Roman, 
constantly  practised,  as  do  the  Greeks  at  this  day,  according  to  what 
Christ  commanded,  and  in  what  sense  he  gave  it,  and  called  it 
reall  Bread  and  Wine :  for  such  he  took,  such  he  brake,  such  he 
blessed,  such  he  gave  to  the  Disciples,  when  he  said,  that  is,  this 
Bread,  is  my  Body,  this  cup  is  my  Blood;  such  S.  Paul  understood 
them  to  be,  and  so  declares  this  the  mind  of  Christ,  as  he  had 
received  it  immediately  from  Christ,  The  Bread  which  we  break,  is 
it  not  the  Communion  of  the  Body  of  Christ  ?  For  we  are  all 
partakers  of  that  one  Bread.  So,  whosoever  shall  eat  this  bread  and 
drink  this  cup  unworthily.  Let  a  man  examine  himself  before  he 
eat  of  that  bread. 

"  Certainly  either  the  Apostle's  expressions  must  be  affectedly 
very  dark,  and  his  meaning  different  from  his  words,  or  he  was 
quite  of  another  mind  than  the  Papists  are  at  this  day,  who  durst, 
in  the  all-daring  Council  of  Trent,  damn  all  those  who  follow  Christs 
example,  use  his  words,  and  are  of  the  Apostle's  judgment,  expressing 
their  sense  of  the  blessed  Sacrament  in  his  words  ;  which  we  think 
much  safer  to  follow,  both  in  the  use  of  Sacramentall  Bread  and 
Wine,  communicated  to  all  Receivers,  and  in  the  persuasion  we  have 
of  our  receiving  true  Bread  and  Wine,  yet  duly  consecrated,  and  so 
sacramentally  united  to  the  Reall  Body  and  Blood  of  Christ,  which 
we  faithfully  behold,  thankfully  receive,  and  reverently  adore  in  that 
blessed  Mysterie,  according  to  the  ancient  Faith,  Judgment, 
Reverence  and  Devotion  of  the  Church  of  Christ,  void  of  sacrilegious 
novelties,  and  incredible  superstitious,  vanities." — pp.  309-11. 

Nothing  can  be  clearer  than  that  he  distinctly  repudiated 
Transubstantiation  :  at  the  same  time  the  language  of  the 
last  paragraph  seems  very  plainly  to  enunciate  his  belief  in 
the  Real  Objective  Presence. 

We  next  meet  with  him  as  Bishop  of  Exeter  and  learn  his 
opinion,  about  Kneeling  at  the  Sacrament,  as  set  forth  in  a 
Folio  Tract,  called 

"  The  COUNSELL  which  the  Bishop  of  EXCESTER  delivered  to 
XLIV.  PRESBYTERS  anjd  DEACONS,  after  they  had  been  ORDAINED  by 
him  (with  the  assistance  of  other  grave  Ministers)  in  the  Cathedral 
Church  of  Excester,  after  the  Primitive,  Catholic,  and  lawful  way  of 
the  Church  of  England.  January  13,  1660  [1]. 

"  Printed  by  /.  Flesher,  and  are  to  be  sold  by  K  Eoyston,  Book- 
seller to  his  Sacred  Majesty,  MDCLXI." 

The  following  passages,  like  those  just  cited,  are  printed 
to  correspond  with  the  original : — 

"  In  like  sort  as  if  we  had  contended  for  our  Religion  and  Pos- 

R    R 


306 

terity,  or  for  the  main  points  of  State  and  hinges  of  Empire,  we  have 
canvassed  those  questions  very  sadly  and  superciliously,  Whether  God 
loolcs  with  more  kindness  and  welcome  on  those  that  receive  the  Lord's 
Supper  sitting,  or  standing,  or  kneeling.  In  which  I  conceive  the 
Christians  of  the  first  Ages  (for  the  most  part)  used  standing,  in  the 
presence  and  service  of  God  ;  and  possibly  in  the  holy  Eucharist  too; 
expressing  by  the  uprightness  and  readiness  of  that  posture  the  Faith 
they  had  as  to  Christ's  Resurrection,  that  great  Article  in  which,  as 
in  one  center,  the  whole  orb  of  Christian  Faith  doth  move.  Sitting  at 
Church  Tertullian  counts  rude  and  reproachful  to  the  Divine  Majesty  ; 
not  only  as  too  familiar,  but  as  impudently  testifying  a  weariness  in 
His  Service. 

" In  after-ages  of  the  Church,  when  the  Arrian  Pest  had  infected 
farre  and  neare,  the  Orthodox  Christians  enclined  more  to  kneeling 
at  the  Sacrament,  as  thereby  owning  and  vindicating  the  adorable 
Majesty  and  Divinity  of  Christ,  one  and  equal,  as  God,  with  the 
Father  and  the  Holy  Spirit.  A  gesture  no  doubt  variable,  because  not 
necessary,  having  not  the  mark  of  precept  and  institution  upon  it,  so 
much  as  of  occasion  and  custome  :  yet  it  is  lawful  and  commendable, 
because  according  to  the  general  tenour  and  analogy  of  Divine  worship ; 
at  least  it  is  free,  and  not  to  be  rigidly  exacted,  accordiny  to  the  first 
gesture  of  Christ,  who  followed  the  civil  fashion  of  the  Jewish  nation 
in  their  discumbency  or  lying  down  at  their  meales,  in  a  leaning 
posture:  which  few,  if  any,  of  the  great  sticklers  against  kneeling  do 
observe. 

"Besides  this,  there  is  without  doubt  a  vast  difference  between  the 
Divine  Majesty  of  Christ,  at  first  instituting  these  Sacred  Mysteries 
of  the  Lord's  Supper  by  his  soveraign  autority  ;  and  us,  poor  worth- 
less wretches,  celebrating  them  with  that  reverence  and  humility  which 
becomes  our  vileness  and  distance,  when  we  are  to  receive  those  heavenly 
dainties  from  the  table  and  hands  of  Christ  with  that  duty  and  obe- 
dience, adoration  and  gratitude  which  is  meet.  Not  that  the  efficacy, 
grace  and  comfort  of  the  Holy  Sacrament  depends  upon  the  gesture 
of  the  Body  ;  but  upon  the  faithful,  penitent  and  devout  temper  of 
the  gratious  heart. 

"  Only  it  is  for  certain  no  sin  in  a  Christian,  both  to  eocpress  and 
excite  the  inward  motives  of  an  humble  and  devout  soul,  by  the  out- 
ward gestures  and  sutable  motions  of  the  body  ;  as  in  lifting  up  the 
hands  and  eyes  to  heaven,  so  in  the  bowing  of  the  head  and  knees  and 
whole  body  toward  the  earth :  By  the  one  we  shew  the  sense  of  our 
own  vileness  and  misery ;  by  the  other  our  hopes  in  God's  mercy  and 
benignity." — pp.  19  and  20. 

It  was  only  four  months  after  giving  this  "  counsell"  that 
the  Savoy  Conference  was  held,  Gauden  being  one  of  the 
Episcopal  Commissioners  :  the  Answers  of  the  Bishops  to 


307 

the  Puritan  demand,  that  Kneeling  at  the  Sacrament  "  may 
be  left  free,"  distinctly  embody  the  opinions  put  forth  by 
Bishop  Gauden  in  both  these  extracts  ;  thus  they  say  : — 

"  §  15.  The  position  of  kneeling  best  suits  at  the  Communion  as 
the  most  convenient,  and  so  most  decent  for  us,  when  we  are  to  re- 
ceive as  it  were  from  God's  hand  the  greatest  of  seals  of  the  kingdom 
of  heaven.  He  that  thinks  he  may  do  this  sitting,  let  him  remem- 
ber the  prophet  Mai.  OfTer  this  to  the  prince,  to  receive  his  seal 
from  his  own  hand  sitting,  see  if  he  will  accept  it.  When  the 
Chuch  did  stand  at  her  prayers,  the  manner  of  receiving  was  '  more 
adorantium,'  (S.  Aug.  Psalm  xcviii.  Cyril.  Catch.  Mystag.  5,) 
rather  more  than  at  prayers,  since  standing  at  prayer  hath  been 
generally  left,  and  kneeling  used  instead  of  that  (as  the  Church  may 
vary  in  such  indifferent  things).  Now  to  stand  at  Communion, 
when  we  kneel  at  prayers,  were  not  decent,  much  less  to  sit,  which 
was  never  the  use  of  the  best  times." — Card.  Hist.  Conf.,  p.  350. 

The  Bishops  say  that  the  ancient  custom  of  receiving  the 
Communion  was  "  more  adorantium,"  even  "  when  the  Church 
did  stand  at  her  prayers  :"  Bishop  Gauden,  one  of  them,  had 
published  two  years  before  that  "we  faithfully  behold,  thank- 
fully receive,  and  reverently  adoro  in  that  blessed  Mysterie" 
the  "  Reall  Body  and  Blood  of  Christ"  and,  too,  "  according  to 
the  ancient  Faith,  Judgment,  Reverence  and  Devotion  of  the 
Church  of  Christ,  void  of  sacrilegious  novelties,  and  incredi- 
ble superstitious  vanities"  Also  in  his,  ncounsell"  just  no- 
ticed, he  advocates  Kneeling  at  the  Sacrament  on  this  very 
ground  that  it  is  most  "  suitable"  at  that  time  "  when  we  are 
to  receive  those  heavenly  dainties  from  the  table  and  hands  of 
Christ  with  that  .  .  .  adoration  and  gratitude  which  is  meet." 
Moreover,  his  argument  throughout  this  latter  Document  is 
quite  in  accordance  with  the  second  Answer  of  the  Bishops 
upon  "  The  Communion  Service/'  touching  Kneeling,  in 
which  they  say  : — 

"  §  10.  Kneel  at  Sacr.  Concerning  kneeling  at  the  Sacrament 
we  have  given  account  already  ;  only  thus  much  we  add,  that  we 
conceive  it  an  error  to  say  that  the  Scripture  affirms  the  Apostles  to 
have  received  not  kneeling.  The  posture  of  the  paschal  supper  we 
know  ;  but  the  institution  of  the  holy  Sacrament  was  after  supper  : 
and  what  posture  was  then  used  the  Scripture  is  silent.  The  Rub. 


308 

at  the  end  of  the  1.  Ed.  C.  that  leaves  kneeling,  crossing,  &c., 
indifferent,  is  meant  only  at  such  times  as  they  are  not  prescribed 
and  required.  But  at  the  Eucharist  kneeling  is  expressly  required 
in  the  Rub.  following/' — Card.  p.  354. 

But  it  was  at  the  very  same  time  when  these  Answers  were 
given  that  the  same  Bishops  (for  there  is  nothing  to  shew 
that  Gauden  did  not  concur)  as  distinctly  refused  to  restore 
the  Declaration  on  Kneeling,  though  pressed  to  do  so  by  the 
Puritans,  "  for  the  vindicating  of  our  Church  in  the  matter 
of  kneeling  at  the  Sacrament  (although  the  gesture  be  left 
indifferent) :"  the  Bishops'  answer,  which  it  may  be  as  well 
to  repeat  here,  though  given  at  p.  70,  is : — 

"§  12.  This  Rub.  is  not  in  the  Liturgy  of  Queen  Elizabeth, 
nor  confirmed  by  law ;  nor  is  there  any  great  need  of  restoring  it, 
the  world  being  now  in  more  danger  of  profanation  than  of  idolatry. 
Besides  the  sense  of  it  is  declared  sufficiently  in  the  28th  Article  of 
the  Church  of  England."—  Card.  p.  354. 

How  came  it  to  pass,  then,  that  (as  Burnet  tells  us) 
Gauden  "  pressed"  (p.  71)  the  Declaration,  and  that  by  his 
"  means"  it  was  "  put  in"  (p.  302)  ?  It  may  be,  as  "  the 
Duke"  said  "  severely,"  that  Gauden  did  it  as  "  a  popular" 
measure,  though  it  had  been  "  resolved  to  gratify  [the 
Puritans]  in  nothing"  (p.  71) :  but  then  it  in  no  way  follows 
that  he  regarded  it  as  anything  more  than  a  Protest  against 
Transubstantiation  :  nor  is  there  anything  to  indicate  that 
the  other  Bishops  viewed  it  differently  ;  on  the  contrary  their 
statement  that  "  the  sense  of  it  is  declared  sufficiently  in  the 
28th  Article,"  plainly  implies  a  like  belief.  It  is,  indeed, 
very  likely  that  Gauden  thought  it  would  help  to  neutralize 
the  effect  of  Puritan  opposition  if  this  Declaration  against 
Roman  doctrine  were  again  adopted  ;  and  it  was  only  what 
he  had  himself  stated  when  he  wrote  (p.  303)  "  that  the  an- 
cient churches  received  those  holy  mysteries  with  an  high 
veneration  indeed  of  that  Body  and  Blood  of  Christ,  which  was 
thereby  signified,  conveyed  and  sealed  to  them  in  the  truth  and 
merits  of  the  Passion;  but  yet  without  any  Divine  Adoration 
of  the  Bread  and  Wine,  or  any  imagination  that  they  were 


309 

transubstantiated  from  their  own  seeming  essence  and  nature 
to  the  very  Body  and  Blood  of  Christ :"  but  it  is  beyond 
belief,  as  it  seems  to  me,  that  he  (or  indeed  his  colleagues) 
could  have  designed  thereby  to  express  any  concurrence*  in 
the  Puritans'  denial  of  the  Real  Presence,  or  in  their  ob- 
jection to  Adoration,  unless  we  entirely  ignore  his  other 
statements  already  quoted,  or  persuaded  ourselves  that  he 
had  abandoned  them. 

Yet  if  this  was  Gaudens  wish  and  design,  Sheldon  s  oppo- 
sition may  naturally  enough  have  arisen  either  from  the  fear 
that  it  would  be  accounted  a  concession  to  the  Puritans 
which  might  prove  inconvenient  after  the  refusal  which  had 
been  given  in  the  Conference,  or  from  a  disinclination  to 
provoke  the  Roman  party  by  putting  forth  a  Declaration 
which  the  Conference  had  said  there  was  no  "  great  need"  of 
on  the  score  of  "  danger"  from  "  idolatry."  Gunning's  pro- 
posal to  change  the  words  "  reall  and  essentiall"  may,  most 
likely,  have  met  the  difficulty  and  may  have  led  to  that  agree- 
ment between  Gauden,  Gunning,  and  the  Bishops  which  I 
ventured  to  assume  (p.  73)  took  place — an  opinion  which  is 
certainly  confirmed  by  this  additional  information  which 
has  been  considered. 

That  Gauden's  Eucharistic  belief,  though  most  clearly  op- 
posed to  Transubstantiation,  not  only  presented  no  obstacle 
to  Gunning's  proposed  change  but  readily  fell  in  with  it, 
may  be  further  concluded  from  another  work  of  Gauden's 
which,  after  many  searches  and  inquiries  in  all  likely  quarters 
during  some  eighteen  months,  I  have  fortunately  met  with  in 
the  possession  of  a  private  individual. f  When  the  Book 
was  written  I  have  been  unable  to  ascertain :  the  Biographia 

*  It  is  with  this  qualification  that  we  must  read  the  following  passage  in 
Kennetts  Register  and  Chronicle,  p.  585  :  — 

"  The  Concessions  and  Alterations  that  were  now  made  for  reforming  the  Book 
of  Common  Prayer. 

"  ix.  They  desired  that  a  Kubrick  in  the  Common  Prayer  Book  in  5  &  6  Edw. 
vi.  for  the  vindicating  of  our  Church  in  the  matter  of  kneeling  at  the  Sacrament, 
without  the  Declaration,  &c.,  might;  be  restored,  and  it  was  so." 

Kennett's  language  reads  as  if  he  saw  no  distinction  between  the  old  and  new 
form  of  the  Declaration,  whatever  he  may  have  thought  both  to  mean. 

f  John  Nealds,  Esq.,  of  Guildford,  who,  in  answer  to  my  enquiry  in  that 
most  useful  publication  Notes  and  Queries,  obligingly  allowed  me  the  loan  of  it. 


310 

Britannica  speaks  of  it  as  published  "  Lond.  1681  :"  Gauden, 
however,  died  Sep.  20,  1662,  so  that  it  was  either  a  posthu- 
mous publication  or  a  reprint  of  an  Edition  published  in  his 
life  time  :  but  from  the  circumstance  that  it  was  dedicated  to 
"  The  Lady  Rich,"  who  died  Nov.  12,  1657,  it  may  most 
reasonably  be  concluded  to  have  been  published  under  Gau- 
den's  own  auspices.  The  copy  from  which  I  now  quote  is 
dated  1707,  being  the  Tenth  Edition,  and  bears  the  Im- 
primatur of  Archbishop  Bancroft,  1686;  whether  the  Archie- 
piscopal  sanction  was  then  for  the  first  time  given,  or  was 
appended  to  the  Edition  of  1681  or  to  any  earlier  Edition* 
I  have  not  been  able  to  learn  :  nor  is  the  point  material :  the 
sanction  of  Bancroft,  whenever  appended,  is  a  sufficient  tes- 
timony of  the  value  of  the  book  itself.  The  Title  is  as 
follows  : — 

"  The  whole  duty  of  a  communicant :  being  rules  and  directions 
for  a  worthy  receiving  The  most  Holy  Sacrament  of  the  Lord's 
Supper.  With  Meditations  and  Prayers  for  every  Morning  and 
Evening  throughout  the  Week.  Also,  some  Useful  Directions  and 
Considerations,  in  order  to  a  Holy  Life  after  we  have  received  the 
Blessed  Communion. 

"  By  the  Right  Reverend  Father  in  God, 

John  Gauden,  late  Lord 

Bishop  of  Exeter. 

The  tenth  Edition. 

**  London  :  Printed  for  N.  Boddington,  at  the  Golden-Ball  in  Duck 
Lane ;  and  H.  Hoodes,  at  the  Star,  the  Corner  of  Bride  Lane,  Fleet 
Street.  1707." 

The  Frontispiece  represents  an  Altar  vested  for  the  Holy 
Communion,with  Linen  Cloth  on  the  top  of  the  Table — two  Fla- 
gons, two  Chalices  with  covers — return  Rails,  so  close  to  the 

*  I  have  since  met  with  another,  and  perfect,  copy  belonging  to  the  Rev.  G. 
F.  Lee,  who  has  kindly  allowed  me  the  use  of  it :  this  is  an  earlier  edition ;  it 
has  the  same  Frontispiece,  Imprimatur,  and  Dedication;  the  title  page  runs 
thus  : — 

"  The  Whole  Duty  of  a  Communicant :  being  Rules  and  Directions  for  a 
Worthy  Receiving  the  Most  Holy  Sacrament  of  the  Lord's  Supper.     By  the 
Right  Reverend  Father  in  God,  John  Gauden,  late  Lord  Bishop  of  Exeter. 
"He  being  Dead,  yet  speaketh. 

"  The  Fourth  Edition  with  Additions,  out  of  the  Reverend  Prelate's  Original 
Copies. 

"  London;  Printed  by  D.  M.  for  Langley  Curtiss  near  Fleet-Bridge,  and  Hen. 
Rodes,  next  door  to  the  Swan-Tavern,  near  Bride-Lane  in  Fleet-Street,  1688." 

Any  different  readings  which  occur  in  this  Edition  are  thrown  into  Notes. 


311 

ends  of  the  Altar  that,  apparently,  the  Celebrant  could  not  stand 
at  the  north  end.  Over  the  Altar  appears  a  company  of  Angels 
amid  clouds  and  radiating  light :  kneeling  on  the  lower  steps 
of  the  Altar  are  two  Angels,  looking  North  and  South  : — at  the 
bottom  of  the  Frontispiece  are  the  words,  "  The  Angells  ad- 
mire the  Divine  Goodnes."  It  bears  the — 

"  Imprimatur,  Hen.  Maurice,  Reverendissimo  in  Chr.  Pat. 
and  Dom.  Domino  Gulielmo  Archiep.  Cant,  e  Sacris  Domesticis. 
"May  the  3 1st,  1686." 

The  Dedication  is  "To  The  truly  Honoured  The  Lady 
Rich,"  and  is  signed,  "  J.  Gauden."  In  it  he  says  : — 

"  .  .  ,  in  an  Argument  of  so  mysterious  a  depth,  good  affections 
are  rather  to  be  raised  and  inflamed,  than  Subtilties  searched  and  dis- 
puted. When  I  come  short  in  depth  of  knowledge,  I  endeavour  to 
supply  in  belief  of  the  truth,  in  love  to  the  goodness,  in  thanks  for 
the  benefit,  in  admiration  of  the  mercy  and  designation  ;*  the  less  I 
reach  to  its  height,  the  more  I  retire  to  my  own  heart,  which  I  can 
sufficiently  prepare  by  humility,  for  the  receiving  of  that,  whose 
Divine  Excellency,  tho'  I  cannot  comprehend,  yet  the  benefit  and  hap- 
piness by  it  I  may  obtain." 

The  following  are  all  the  passages  touching  in  any  way  the 
subject  of  the  Real  Presence:  the  italics  are  in  the  original: — 

"  That  great  Solemnity  and  Angelical  feast." — p.  1. 
"  II.  [a] 

"  A  Sacrament  is  a  visible  Sign  of  an  invisible  Grace,  a  holy  Seal 
ordained  of  God  to  strengthen  our  Faith  in  His  promises  in  Jesus 
Christ,  for  the  free  Remission  of  our  Sins  :  Which  God,  therefore, 
annexed  to  His  Word,  to  confirm  us  by  representing  the  Sufferings 
of  Christ  to  our  sight  and  tasting,  as  the  Gospel  preacheth  in  to  our 
ears  ;  and  it  is  called  the  Lord's  Supper,  because  Christ  ordained  it 
as*  His  last  Supper,  Matt.  xxvi.  26.  Wherein  to  fulfil  the  Law  He 
eat  the  Paschal  Lamb,  and  to  shew  the  determination  and  change  of 
the  Levitical  Law  and  Priesthood,  He  ordained  for  this  New  Cove- 
nant of  Grace,  a  New  Sacrament  and  Seal  thereof,  that  it  succeeding 
the  Passover,  might  declare  Him  to  be  the  Lamb  of  God  which  taketh 
away  the  sins  of  the  world,  John  i.  19,  to  shew  and  represent  His 
Death,  until  His  coming  again  ;  to  leave  His  Church  a  Badge  of 
distinction  from  Infidels,  and  a  parting  Token  and  Pledge  of  His 
great  Love,  assuring  the  Faithful  of  His  continual  Care  of  them." — 
p.  2. 

*  " Dignation."— ed.  1688.  f  "at."— ed.  1688. 


312 

"  III.  [a] 

"  The  visible  Signs  are  Bread  and  Wine,  the  thing  signified  is  the 
participation  of  the  Body  and  Blood  of  Christ,  the  benefit  of  whose 
Death  and  Passion  being  apprehended  by  faith  accrue  to  us  as  our 
Mystick*  Union  with  Christ,  our  Incorporation  into  Him,  our  Re- 
conciliation with  God,  and  the  nourishment  of  our  most  precious 
Souls  to  Eternal  Life,  John  vi.  54.  Whoso  eateth  my  Flesh,  and 
drinketh  my  Hood,  hath  Eternal  Life,  and  I  will  raise  him  up  at  the 
last  day " — p.  3. 

"  Secondly,  The  Author  by  whom  it  was  instituted. 

"  ii.  M 

"  So  that  in  this  great  Mystery  ....  Reason  is  quite  dazled  and 
blind,  ....  devolving  all  the  Work  of  this  Holy  Mystery  to  Faith, 
which  relies  upon  the  Truth,  Power  and  Love  of  the  Institutor,  Jesus 
Christ,  who  while  He  was  yet  on  earth,  by  a  corporal  and  natural 
Presence  conversing  with  men,  but  chiefly  with  His  choice  and  do- 
mestick  Company,  the  Twelve  Apostles,  a  little  before  His  Death, 
instituted  this  Sacred  Mystery,  after  His  last  Supper  which  He  made 
with  them."— p.  8. 

"III.   [b] 

"  By  the  Evidence  of  this  Sacrament,  exhibiting  himself  to  them, 
and  all  believing  Souls,  ...  as  ...  after  His  Ascension  might  be  a 
continual  Memorial  and  Seal  of  the  Covenant  of  Grace,  ....  a  lively 
Token  and  Pledge  of  His  Spiritual  Presence  with  His  Church,  during 
His  Bodily  Absence,  till  His  second  coming,  as  also  a  Badge  of .... 
that  mutual  Love  and  Charity  of  Believers,  who  are  all  united  by 
Faith  to  one  and  the  same  Saviour,  of  whom  they  are  all  Partakers  in 
this  One  Sacrament,  as  well  of  the  Invisible  Grace  as  the  Outward 
and  Visible  Signs,  the  Bread  and  Wine." — p.  8. 

"  Thirdly,  The  Outward  Means  suitable  to  this  End. 

"I-  M 

"  The  Choice  of  which  familiar  Signs,  made  by  our  Saviour  for  the 
Outward  Means,  discovered  a  wonderful  Wisdom,  ....  Things  .  .  . 
such  as  for  the  Community  may  be  had  of  all  Nations,  ....  though 
where  the  proper  species  of  Bread  and  Wine  cannot  be  had,  those 
means  of  nourishment,  which  are  proportionable  may  be  used,  so  that 
no  Nation  or  Man  may  think  himself  excluded  from  the  use  and 
comfort  of  this  Sacrament  of  the  Lord's-Supper." — p.  9. 

"III.    [c] 

"  For  their  Plainness  and  Simplicity,  it  is  such  as  may  take  off 
Christian  Minds  from  placing  Piety  and  the  Mysteries  of  Grace  and 
Religion  in  any  External  Pomp  and  Vanity,  which  doth  but  dazle 

*  «  mystical."— ed.  1688. 


313 

the  Eyes  and  amaze  the  Senses,  and  detain  Vulgar  and  Common 
Minds,  by  the  Outward  Glory  of  the  Senses  Objects,  from  that  inward 
retiring  of  the  Spirit  and  Soul  to  its  proper  and  comfortable  objects, 
which  are  Spiritual,  Invisible,  and  Intellectual,  and  far  remote  from 
the  Senses,  and  abstracted  from  them,  so  that  Christians  cannot  easily 
be  so  grossly  and  stupidly  sensual,  as  to  imagine  any  Efficacy  in 
these  small  and  simple  Elements  of  themselves,  no  more  than  in  Wax 
or  Parchment,  which  not  of  their  proper  Virtue,  but  only  of  the  Will 
of  the  Conveyer,  have  Power  to  Convey  an  Estate  to  the  Receiver  of 
them."—  p.  10. 

Fourthly,  The  Mystical  Union,  by  which  they  effectually  attain  and 
convey  to  us  that  End  and  Benefit  which  is  propounded. 


"  For  the  Sacramental  Union  of  the  Outward  Signs,  which  are  the 
proper  objects  of  our  Senses,  to  the  Body  and  Blood  of  Christ,  which 
are  the  proper  Objects  of  our  Faith,  this  I  conceive  to  be  not  by  any 
Physical  or  Natural  Union  as  the  Fruit  to  the  Tree,  ....  nor  yet 
by  any  .  .  .  changing  the  Substance  of  these  Elements  into  the  sub- 
stance of  Christ's  Body  and  Blood  .  .  .  ."  —  p.  14. 

"  n.  [a] 

"  Nor  may  Omnipotency  ...  be  so  far  extended  by  Human  Fancy 
and  Imagination  to  ......  tell  us  jointly  that  they  are  Bread  and 

Wine,  and  yet  his  Will  is  at  the  same,  and  about  the  same  Thing, 
that  .  .  .  they  are  not  Bread  and  Wine,  but  substantially  Flesh  and 
Blood;  .  .  ."—p.  14. 

"VI.  [d] 

"  So  that  as  the  Bread  and  Wine,  by  their  natural  Qualities  and 
Virtues,  are  fit  to  represent  the  spiritual  Efficacy  of  the  Body  and 
Blood  of  Christ,  yet  by  a  natural  Power,  are  no  whit  able  to  impart 
to  a  Communicant  the  Body  and  Blood  of  Christ,  with  the  Benefits 
of  them  to  the  Soul  :  So  that  our  Blessed  Saviour  hath  made  choice 
of  them  for  the  first,  and  hath  given  to  them  a  Sacramental  Virtue, 
and  a  Supernatural  Efficacy  for  the  Second,  which  they  truly  do  as 
Remembrances,  as  Signs  and  Seals  ;  really  conveying  to  the  believing 
and  prepared  Soul,  by  the  concurrent  Spirit  and  Power  of  the  In- 
stitutor,  Jesus  Christ,  that  which  in  their  Nature  they  do  fitly  repre- 
sent." —  p.  17. 

"IX.   [d] 

"  We  deny  not  a  true  and  real  presence  and  perception  of  Christ's 
Body  and  Blood  in  the  Sacrament,  which  in  reality  even  they  of  the 
other  gross  opinion  do  not  imagine  is  to  Sense,  but  to  Faith  ;  which 
perceives  its  Objects  as  really,  according  to  Faith's  perception,  as 
the  Senses  do  theirs  after  their  manner.  I  believe  therefore,  That 
in  the  Sacrament  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  there  are  both  Objects  pre- 

s  s 


314 

sented  to,  and  received  by  a  worthy  Receiver ;  First,  the  Bread  and 
Wine  in  their  own  Nature  and  Substance  distinct,  do  remain  as  well 
as  their  Accidents,  which  are  the  true  Objects  of  our  Sense,  and  fit 
Signs  to  represent  by  them  the  inward  Grace." — p.  20. 

"X.  [d] 

"  Also  there  are  spiritual,  invisible,  and  credible,  yet  most  true  and 
really  present,  Objects  of  Faith ;  the  Body  and  Blood  of  Christ,  that  is 
Christ  Jesus  himself ]  whom  by  Faith  I  consider  as  suffering  for  my 
Sins,  and  cast  my  soul  by  His  mercy  offered  me  by  the  Merits  of 
His  Death.  These  two  Materials  of  the  Sacrament  are  so  united, 
that  it  may  be  truly  said  (not  in  a  Gross  and  Physical,  but  Divine 
and  Sacramental  Sense)  the  Bread  and  Wine  are  the  Body  and 
Blood  of  Christ,  and  Christ's  Body  and  Blood  are  Bread  and  Wine  : 
John  vi.  Meat  indeed,  and  Drink  indeed,  not  by  transmutation  of 
Nature,  but  by  a  similitude  of  Virtues,  and  proportionable  Effects, 
by  a  Sacramental  Union  and  Relation,  depending  upon  the  Truth, 
Authority,  and  Divine  Power  of  the  Institutor,  Jesus  Christ" — 
p.  20. 

"XL   [d] 

"  Whose  Appointment  of  these  Elements  to  such  a  Use  or  End, 
and  uniting  them  in  this  near  Relation  to  His  Body  and  Blood,  by 
the  solemn  Consecration  of  them,  make  up  the  firm  and  true  Being 
of  a  Sacrament,  which  requires  a  Truth  and  Reality,  both  of  the 
Signs  and  Symbols,  and  that  which  is  by  them  represented  and  sig- 
nified ;*  a  Truth  and  Certainty  of  Relation  and  Connexion  one  with 
another  :  So  that  I  receive  not  only  Panem  Domini,  the  Bread  of  the 
Lord ;  but  also,  Panem  Dominum,  my  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  the  true 
Bread  of  Life  eternal  to  my  Soul  and  Body  ;  this  latter,  as  truly  and 
really  as  the  former,  together  with  all  the  benefits  which  flow  from 
Christ."— p.  21. 

"XII.    [d] 

"  On  the  other  side,  whoso  unpreparedly  and  irreverently,  and  so 
unworthily,  receives  the  one,  contracts  a  Guilt  of  Damnation  for 
Neglect,  Indignity,  and  Irreverence  offered  to  the  other  ;  that  is, 
the  Body  and  Blood  of  Christ,  which  Faith  only  discerns  and  receives 
in  this  great  Mystery  :  And  whoso  violates  and  contemns  the  Seal 
and  authentick  Letters  of  the  King,  becomes  guilty  of  Indignity 
and  Offence  to  his  Authority  and  Majesty,  which  is  not  only  re- 
strained to  his  person ;  but  also  inseparably  annexed  to  any  Sign  or 
Token  by  which  he  is  pleased  to  Manifest  His  Royal  Will  and 
Pleasure,  thus  rightly  informed,  as  I  hope,  in  the  Nature  of  this  Sa- 
crament, what  it  is  in  itself,  what  it  may  be  to  me,  of  how  Divine  a 
Mystery  and  Dignity  it  is  in  itself  to  my  Soul,  either  of  Comfort  and 
Salvation  in  a  Worthy  Receiving,  or  of  Guilt  and  Damnation  in  an 
Unworthy  Receiving  of  it." — p.  21. 

*  "also  a."— ed.  1688. 


315 

"  Fifthly,  How  we  ought  to  prepare  ourselves. 
"I.    [e] 

"  ....  by  a  Self  Examining,  see  what  fitness  there  is  in  me, 
answerable  to  these  Holy  Mysteries,  and  the  Grace  of  God  by  these 
offered  to  me,  and  most  Effectually  Conveyed,  except  the  Unpre- 
paredness,  and  Indisposition  of  my  Heart  do  Frustrate  and  put  an 
Obstacle."— p.  22. 

"XL  [e] 

"  .  .  .  .  the  sight  of  the  Promises,  and  the  Seals  of  the  Sacrament 
annexed  to  them,  in  which  I  behold  Jesus  Christ  crucified,  does 
again  establish  my  Heart  .  .  .  ." — p.  30. 

"XVII.    [e] 

"  The  same  holy  frame,  and  devout  temper  of  Spirit,  I  labour  to 
continue  in  my  receiving,  carrying  my  Faith,  by  the  visible  Repre- 
sentations before  me,  and  giving*  to  me  to  behold  its  invisible,  but 
most  credible  Object,  Jesus  Christ  crucified  and  dying  for  sin  ...  ." 
—p.  34. 

"  Rules  and  Directions  to  a  Week's  Preparation. 

"i.  [f] 

"  When  thou  hearest  the  warning  read  in  the  Church  by  the 
Minister,  consider  and  contemplate  with  thyself  that  God  Almighty 
hath  sent  forth  His  Servant  to  bid  thee  to  this  great  Supper,  where 
not  His  fat  Oxen  are  killed,  but  His  only  beloved  Son  and  thy  dear 
Saviour  (who  was  crucified  on  the  Cross,  for  thine,  and  for  the  Sins 
of  the  whole  World)  is  offered  to  thee  to  feed  upon  in  thine  Heart 
with  Faith  and  Thanksgiving  ;  .  .  .  . " — p.  39. 

'*  Monday  Morning,  a  Preparatory  Prayer  to  the  holy  Sacrament. 

"i.  w 

"  ....  I  do  hear  thy  Word,  and  thy  dear  Son  is  offered  unto  my 
Ear  ;  I  receive  this  Sacrament,  and  now  He  is  offered  unto  my  Eye, 
in  the  Testimony  of  these  two  Witnesses,  this  Truth  is  established 
in  my  Heart,  that  my  Saviour  suffered  Death  for  my  Sin." — p.  47. 

This  copy  is  defective  here,  pp.  51  to  58,  viz.,  Self  exami- 
nation on  the  Ten  Commandments. 

"  A  Prayer  for  Pardon  and  Remission  of  Sins. 

IV.  [h] 

" Cleanse  my  heart  throughly that  I  may  receive 

Jesus  Christ  with  all  the  Benefits  of  His  death  and  Passion " 

"  Meditations  for  Monday  Evening  on  the  Holy  Sacrament,  of  the 
Lord's  Supper,  showing  the  necessity  of  receiving  it/' 

*  "  given." -ed.  1688. 


316 

"II.  [i] 

"  O  most  wonderful  Sacrament,  what  shall  I  say  of  thee  !  Thou 
art  the  life  of  my  soul,  and  a  Medicine  to  heal  all  my  wounds  !  .  .  .  " 
—  p.  62. 

III.  [ij 

" Shall  I  who  am  loaden  with  sins,  dare  to  present  myself 

to  that  holy  banquet ;  where  Angels  wait  as  ministering  Spirits,  sent 
out  for  the  good  of  those  who  are  to  receive  the  Earnest  of  Salva- 
tion ?  Shall  I  with  lascivious  eyes,  full  of  wanton  looks,  behold  that 
Lamb  without  spot  or  blemish  ?  With  my  polluted  looks  and  lying 
tongue,  shall  I  touch  the  Bread  of  Angels  ?  or  shall  I  lodge  the 
KING  of  kings  in  a  heart  filled  with  foul  concupiscence  ?" — p,  63. 

11 A  pray  erf  or  Monday  Evening  on  the  Holy  Sacrament." 

"IV.  [k] 

"  Grant,  O  Lord,  that  I  may  receive  Thee  with  pure  lips  and  a 
penitent  Heart,  that  Thou  dwelling  in  my  Heart  by  Faith,  I  may 
find  myself  strengthened,  comforted,  and  my  Heart  inflamed  with 
the  love  of  Thee ;  then  shall  I  prostrate  myself  before  Thee,  and 
acknowledge  in  the  Assembly  of  Thy  Saints,  that  it  is  Thou  alone 
who  hast  comforted  me,  and  that  there  is  no  salvation  in  any  beside 
Thee."— p.  65. 

"  Meditations  for  Tuesday  Morning  on  the  Holy  Sacrament." 

"VI.  [1] 
"  .  .  .  .  Christ  conveyed  unto  us  in  this  Sacrament." — p.  69. 

"  Meditations  for  Tuesday  Evening,  on  the  Holy  Sacrament." 

"I.  [m] 

"  By  means  of  this  Divine  Food,  the  soul  is  united  to  Christ, 
and  receives  that  strength  and  vigour  which  continually  sets  it  for- 
ward in  its  Spiritual  Ascension.  Who  can  give  worthy  thanks  for 
so  great  a  Benefit  ?  Who  will  not  be  altogether  dissolved  into  tears, 
when  he  sees  Almighty  God  united  to  him  ?  The  more  we  go  about 
to  consider  the  Excellency  and  Virtues  of  this  sovereign  Mystery, 
the  more  do  we  want  words  to  express  it,  and  the  more  doth  our 
understanding  fail  us." — p.  73. 

V.  [m] 

"  He  hath  given  us  of  His  own  Bread,  and  of  His  own  Cup  ;  nay, 
He  hath  given  us  His  own  Body  as  Bread,  His  own  Blood  as  Wine, 
for  the  Nourishment  of  our  Souls  ;  .  .  .  .  " — p.  73. 

"  Meditations  for   Wednesday   Morning,    on   the   Most  Holy 
Sacrament. 

VI.  [n] 

"  O   then  receive  me  a  poor  sinner  at  Thy  Holy  Table  :    this 


317 

most  Holy  Medicine  cures  all  the  wounds  of  sin  ;  this  quickening 
Flesh  overcometh  all  mortal  sin.  This  is  the  most  Holy  Seal 
of  Divine  Promises,  which  we  may  shew  before  God's  Judgment 
Seat  ;  having  this  Pledge  we  may  glory,  and  be  secure  of  eternal 
life :  If  Christ's  Body  and  Blood  be  exhibited  unto  us,  assuredly  all 
other  Benefits  by  that  most  Holy  Body,  and  most  Blessed  Blood, 
are  prepared  for  us  ;  ....  " — p.  82. 

"  Meditations  for  Wednesday,  a  preparation  on  the  Holy  Sacrament." 

"V.  [o] 

"  In  this  blessed  Sacrament  here,  we  have  an  unmoveable  Centre 
to  rest  on ;  God  our  Portion,  Christ  our  Fulness,  an  Object  larger 

than  the  Heavens " — p.  92. 

"  A  Prayer  for  Faith. 

"  O  Almighty  God,  whose  Nature  is  above  our  reach  ;  and  whose 
secret  operations  no  humane  reason  can  conceive  !  Give  me  that 
Faith,  without  which  no  man  can  know  Thee,  and  without  which  no 
soul  can  please  Thee  :  Lord  I  believe,  but  to  believe  unto  righteous- 
ness, O  God,  increase  my  Faith.  Concerning  the  great  Sacrament 
of  Thy  precious  Body  and  Blood,  I  believe  that  in  the  same  Night 
that  Thou,  O  Lord  Jesus,  wast  betrayed,  Thou  didst  give  to  Thy 
disciples  Bread  and  Wine,  which  thou  didst  call  thy  Body  and  Blood, 
with  a  charge  to  eat  and  drink,  and  to  do  the  same  in  remembrance 
of  thee  ;  for  as  thou  wast  upon  thy  Departure,  thou  wouldst  leave 
them  and  me  a  Sign  of  thy  Body,  a  Figure  of  thy  Blood,  and 
a  Memorial  of  thy  bitter  Death  and  bloody  Passion ;  lest  I  should 
forget  thee,  who  wast  ready  to  lay  down  thy  life  for  me,  who  am 
the  worst  and  vilest  of  sinners." — p.  111. 

"II.  [p] 

"  Therefore  I  take  these  Elements  of  Bread  and  Wine,  for  holy 
Signs  of  thy  Body  and  Blood,  believing  that  though  they  remain 
after  the  Consecration  in  their  Substance  both  Bread  and  Wine,  yet 
they  are  more  than  common  Bread  and  Wine,  being  made  by 
prayer  and  thy  holy  Word  the  Figures  of  thy  Flesh  and  Blood ; 
which  in  the  Action  and  Use  of  the  Sacrament,  are  really  and 
effectually  taken  by  the  Faithful.  So  tho'  I  feel  and  taste  Bread 
and  Wine,  yet  by  the  Eye  of  Faith,  I  eat  thy  Body,  and  drink  thy 
Blood,  in  Remembrance  that  thou  didst  Die  for  me,  and  for  all 
Mankind,  "—p.  112. 

"  Meditation  for  Friday  Evening,  on  the  Holy  Sacrament. 

"II-  M 

"  And  the  best  way  to  strengthen  our  Trust  in  God,  is  by  renew- 
ing our  Resignation,  and  when  can  we  more  seasonably  dp  it,  than 
at  our  Receiving  the  blessed  Sacrament,  in  which  we  have  exhibited 
the  Fulness  of  Christ's  Merits,  as  the  Propitiatory  Sacrament  and 
Atonement  for  our  Souls,  by  whom  we  have  Access  unto  the 
Father,  ,  .  .  ."—p.  113. 


318 
"  Meditations  for  Saturday  Evening,  on  the  Most  Holy  Sacrament. 

"  II.  [r] 

"  O  that  I  were  now  with  an  humble  Heart  at  the  Holy  Table  of 
my  Lord,  ....  there  is  the  universal  Medicine  for  all  our  Dise,  ses, 
and  an  Ark  of  Safety  against  all  Dangers ;  there,  O  my  soul,  thou 
mayest  by  the  Eye  of  Faith  behold  thy  crucified  Lord  and  Saviour, 
shedding  his  most  precious  Blood  upon  the  Cross  for  thy  sins,  and 
burning  with  an  unspeakable  desire  of  thy  Salvation.  There  thou 
mayest  look  upon  him  whom  thou  dost  still  crucifie  afresh  by  thy 
sins  daily  and  hourly " — p.  112. 

This  copy  is  imperfect  from  here,  p.  123  to  131,  "  When 
the  Minister  is  saying  the  Offertory"  etc.* 

w 

"  At  the  time  of  the  Consecration  fix  your  Eye  upon  the  Elements, 
and  at  the  Actions  of  the  Ministers  in  ordering  the  Bread  and  Wine, 
we  ought  joyfully  and  thankfully  to  meditate  after  this  manner. 

"  O  who  can  but  admire  and  wonder,  that  the  Son  of  God  should 
become  food  to  the  souls  of  Men,  and  to  humble  himself  so  low  to  be 
represented  by  Bread,  which  is  the  Poor  Man's  Food,  though 
necessary  for  the  Rich  ;  it  is  the  staif  of  our  life,  and  signifies  that 
Body  of  thine,  which  thou  gavest  for  the  life  of  the  World  ;  thou 
hast  by  thy  holy  Mystery  made  this  Bread  and  Wine  spiritual  Food, 
as  well  as  temporal ;  O  Lord,  I  beseech  thee,  let  the  operation  of  it 
be  such  as  to  strengthen  my  soul,  that  I  may  withstand  all  tempta- 
tions whatsoever,  and  evermore  serve  thee  in  Spirit  and  Truth. 
Amen. 

W 

"  When  the  Minister  breaks  the  Bread,  and  pours  out  the  Wine, 
use  these  Meditations. 

"  O  Holy  Jesus,  thy  Blessed  Body  was  torn  with  Nails  upon  the 
Cross,  and  thy  Precious  Blood  was  inhumanly  spilt  by  thy 
Crucifiers  ;  but  I,  unworthy  Wretch,  by  my  manifold  sins  have  oc- 
casioned more  torments  to  thee  ;  they  crucified  thee  but  once,  but  I 
crucifie  thee  daily  ;  they  Crucified  thee  because  they  knew  thee  not, 
but  I  have  known  thee  ;  what  thou  art  in  thyself,  the  Lord  of  Glory, 
and  what  thou  art  to  me,  a  most  tender  and  merciful  Father,  and 
yet  I  have  still  continued  to  Crucifie  thee  afresh :  O  do  thou  work 
in  me,  first  a  great  sorrow  for  my  sins  past,  and  then  a  great  hatred, 
and  a  firm  resolution  against  them  for  the  time  to  come." — p.  134. 

*  But  in  the  Ed.  of  1688  at  p.  133  occurs  the  following: — 
"A  Prayer  before  the  Sacrament. 

"II 0  then,  dear  Lord,  fit  me  I  beseech  thee  for  thyself,  that  I  may 

receive  with  that  joy  and  spiritual  comfort,  this  thy  Body  that  was  broken,  and 
thy  precious  Blooa  which  was  shed  for  me,  whereby  I  may  partake  of  all  the 
Benefits  of  thy  bitter  Death  and  Passion " 


319 

[u] 
"  When  the  Minister  is  drawing  near  thee  with  the  Elements,  say, 

"  I  adore  thee,  O  most  righteous  Redeemer,  that  thou  art  pleas'd 
to  convey  unto  my  soul  thy  precious  Body  and  Blood,  with  all  the 
benefits  of  thy  Death  and  Passion  ;  I  am  not  worthy,  O  Lord,  to 
receive  thee,  but  let  thy  Holy  and  Blessed  Spirit,  with  all  his  purities, 
prepare  for  thee  a  lodging  in  my  soul,  where  thou  mayest  unite  me 
to  thyself  for  ever.  Amen. 

.w 

"  Ejaculations  before  the  Bread. 

"  This  is  that  Bread  which  came  down  from  Heaven,  whosoever 
eateth  shall  never  hunger.  Thou  dealest  thy  Bread  to  those  which 
hunger  after  Righteousness  :  O  feed  my  fainting  soul  with  this 
Bread  of  Life. 

"  O  strengthen  my  Heart  and  Hand  by  a  "lively  Faith,  and  open 
my  mouth  with  fervent  desires  that  I  may  Eat,  not  for  bodily  sus- 
tenance, but  spiritual  relief,  and  the  refreshment  of  my  soul. 

"  O  let  my  soul  feel  the  spiritual  Efficacy  of  thy  grace,  that  I  may 
not  eat  unworthily,  or  to  my  condemnation.  O  Lord,  I  beseech 
thee,  enable  and  direct  me  by  thy  holy  and  blessed  Spirit  to  receive 
it  worthily.  Amen." — p.  136. 

"  When  the  Minister  gives  the  Holy  Bread,  say  softly  with  him 

"  The  Body  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  which  was  given  for  me, 
preserve  my  Body  and  Soul  unto  everlasting  life. 

"  Here  take  the  Bread  with  reverence,  then  proceed: 
"  I  take  and  eat  this  in  Remembrance  that  Christ  died  for  me, 
and  will  feed  on  him  in  my  Heart  with   Faith  and  Thanksgiving. 
Then  answer  audibly,  Amen. 

After  the  Bread,  say : 

"  I  give  thee  hearty  Thanks,  O  Lord  most  Holy,  that  thou  hast 
refreshed  my  soul  at  this  time,  by  my  feeding  upon  thy  Body  which 
was  broken  for  me  ;  If  I  had  lived  innocently  and  had  kept  all  thy 
Commandments,  yet  could  I  have  had  no  proportion  of  merit  to  so 
transcendant  a  Mercy  ;  but  since  I  have  so  loved  Sin,  and  added 
Transgression  to  Transgression,  thy  Mercy  is  so  glorious  and 
infinite,  that  I  stand  amazed  at  the  consideration  of  its  immensity  : 
O  let  me  not  throw  off  this  Wedding  Garment,  or  stain  it  with 
Pollution  of  deadly  Sin,  but  let  me  be  wholly  united  to  thee,  being 
transformed  according  to  thy  Holy  Will  and  Life,  who  livest  and 
reignest  for  ever.  Amen." — p.  137. 

Or  this  : 

"  O  Blessed  Jesus,  sanctifie  this  Bread  to  me  that  it  maybe  to  my 
Soul  the  Staff  of  Strength,  whereby  I  may  vanquish  and  overcome 


all  the  Assaults  of  the  Devil,  the  World  and  the  Flesh,  and  continue 
thy  faithful  Soldier  and  Servant  to  my  Life's  end.     Amen. 

"  When  ihou  receivest  the  Cup,  say  after  the  Minister,  softly  : 
"  The  Blood  of  My  Lord   Jesus  Christ  which  was  shed  for  me. 
preserve  my  Body  and  Soul  unto  everlasting  Life ;   I  drink  this  in 
remembrance  that  Christ's  Blood  was  shed  for  me,  and  am  thankful, 
Amen. — p.  138. 

"  After  the  Cup,  say, 

"  O  how  delightful  is  this  Cup  to  me,  Blessed  Jesus,  which  was 
so  heavy  to  thee  !  it  was  thy  Agony  and  bloody  Sweat,  thy  bitter 
Death  and  Passion,  which  afforded  me  this  Cup  of  chearfulness ; 
thou  didst  find  it  bitter,  when  thou  wast  appeasing  an  angry  Father, 
but  thou  hast  sweetened  it  by  a  reconciliation,  and  hast  wrought  out 
my  Redemption  and  Salvation. 

Or  this : 

"I  Praise  Thee,  I  Bless  Thee,  I  Glorifie  Thee,  O  Lord  most 
Holy,  that  thou  hast  at  this  time  so  refreshed  my  Soul,  and  filled  me 
with  holy  Desires  ;  O  let  thy  tender  Mercy  always  keep  me  in  this 
happy  temper,  that  I  may  never  err,  nor  stray  from  thy  Command- 
ments, but  keep  firm  that  Covenant  which  thou  hast  sealed  with  thy 
most  precious  Blood  for  my  Redemption  ;  and  direct  me,  O  Lord, 
and  guide  me  so  here,  that  I  may  be  a  fit  Member  for  thy  Heavenly 
Kingdom  hereafter.  Amen." — p.  139. 

I  have  extracted  thus  fully  from  this  Book,  even  at  the  risk 
of  being  tedious,  in  order  that  Bishop  Gauden's  opinions  on 
such  points  as  touch  the  subject  of  the  Real  Presence  may  be 
fairly  judged  by  the  context  of  those  passages  in  which  they 
occur ;  and  that  thus  he  may,  in  fact,  speak  for  himself.  An 
analysis  of  the  passages  furnishes  the  expression  of  the 
Bishop's  belief  on  the  following  Eucharistic  statements 
which  he  enumerates : — 

1.  That   the  Eucharist  is  a  sacrificial   representation  of 
Christ's  sufferings  "  to  our  sight  and  tasting." — 

II.  [a]  p.  311.     XL  [e]  p.315.    XVII.  [e]  p.315. 

2.  That  it  has  three  parts  (as  defined  in  the  Church  Cate- 
chism), viz  :  (1.)  The  Sign — sacramentum.     (2.)  The  thing 
signified — res  sacramenti.     (3.)  The  benefits — virtus   sacra- 
menti.— III.  [a]  p.  312.    VI.  [d]  p.  313.  XL  [d.]  p.  314. 

3.  That  it  is  a  Mystery  explicable  only  to  Faith. — 

II.   [b]  p.  312;  and  ineffable— I.   [m]  p.  316. 


321 

4.  That   it   is   a   "lively  token  and  pledge  of"    Christ's 
"Spiritual   Presence  with  His  Church,  during  His  Bodily 
Absence."— III.  [b]  p.  312.    VI.  |n]p.317. 

5.  That  the  "  Sacramental  Union  of  the  Outward  Signs 
....  to  the  Body  and  Blood  of  Christ"  is  not  "any  Physical 
or  Natural  Union,"  nor  yet  Transubstantiation. — I.  and  II. 
[d]  p.  313.    X.  [d]  p.  314.    XL  [d]  p.  314. 

6.  That  the  Bread  and  Wine  by  "  a  supernatural  Efficacy" 
really  convey  what  they  are  designed  also  to  represent,  viz., 
The  Body  and  Blood  of  Christ.— VI.  [d]  p.  313.    V.  [m]  p. 
316.  II.  [p.]  p.  317.  [s]  p.  318:  «.*.,  Christ  Himself  Who  is 
therein  offered  to  feed  upon :— I.  [f]  p.  315.  I.  [g]  p.  315. 
VI.  [1]  p.  316:  even  "that  Bread  which   came  down  from 
Heaven/'— [v]  p.  319. 

7.  That  there  is  "  a  true  and  real  presence  and  perception 
of  Christ's  Body  and  Blood  in  the  Sacrament." — to  faith,  not 
to  sense.— IX.*  X.  and  XL  [d]  pp.  313,  314. 

8.  That  such  Presence  is  Objective  and  irrespective  of  the 
character  of  the  receiver.— III.  [i]  p.  316.     V.  [o]  p.  317. 
Note  p.  318. 

9.  That  this  Presence  is  due  to  Consecration. — XL  [d]  p. 
314.     II.  [p]  p.  317. 

10.  That  in  some  sense  the  Body  and  Blood  of  Christ  are 
received  by  the  wicked.— XII.  [d]  p.  314.     III.  [i]  p.  316. 
[v]  p.  319. 

11.  That  Adoration  is  due  to  Christ  in  the  Sacrament. — 
£u]  p.  319. 

It  will  be  at  once  seen  that  these  Eleven  Propositions  in- 
volve mainly  the  very  questions  which  were  raised  in  the  Case 
which  originally  led  to  the  preparation  of  this  Letter,  and 
which  have  been  brought  into  discussion  also  in  other  cases  ; 
it  can  hardly  be  denied,  I  think,  that  Bishop  Gauden's  lan- 
guage concerning  them  is  sufficiently  strong  and  decided  to 
shield  those  who  have  been  accused  of  employing  an  unwar- 
ranted phraseology ;  especially  when  it  is  recollected  that  the 
man  who  thus  wrote  was  one  of  the  principal  Savoy  Com- 
missioners and  Reviewers  of  1661-62,  and  that  to  him  is 
very  mainly  owing  the  re- introduction  of  that  Declaration  on 

T  T 


Kneeling,  which  the  language  condemned  has  been  declared 
to  contravene,  though  no  proof  has  yet  been  furnished  that 
the  Declaration  was  ever  designed  to  do  more  than  (as  I  have 
argued  throughout  this  Letter)  exclude  the  Doctrine  of 
Transubstantiation,  and  any  consequences  to  which  it  neces- 
sarily led. 

Bishop  Gauden  was  not,  however,  the  only  Prelate  who 
urged  the  re-production  of  this  Declaration  :  we  have  learned 
from  Bishop  Burnet  (see  p.  302)  that  he  "  was  seconded  by 
Southampton  and  Morley:"  why  Southampton  interested 
himself  on  the  subject,  or  what  opinion  he  held  on  the  Doc- 
trinal question,  I  have  been  unable  to  learn,  nor  is  it  of  the 
least  moment  in  considering  the  actions  and  opinions  of  the 
Divines  who  were  concerned  in  the  Revision  of  1662.  But 
it  is  very  desirable  to  ascertain  any  particulars  as  to  Bishop 
Morley's  opinions :  little,  however,  seems  to  be  known  of 
him  :"*  Chalmer's  (Biog.  Diet.  Vol.  xxii.  London,  1815)  says 
that  he  :— 


*  Richard  Baxter,  in  his  Account  of  the  Managers  of  the  Conference  between 
the  Episcopal  and  Presbyterian  Divines,  says  of  him  :— "Bishop  Morley  was 
oft  there,  but  not  constantly,  and  with  free  and  fluent  words,  with  much  earnest- 
ness, was  the  chief  speaker  of  all  the  Bishops,  and  the  greatest  interrupter  of  us  ; 
vehemently  going  on  with  what  he  thought  serviceable  to  his  end.  and  bearing 
down  Answers  by  the  said  fervour  and  interruptions." — Life,  p.  363,  fol.  1696. 

It  may  be  as  well  to  hear  his  opinion  of  others,  whose  names  have  been  men- 
tioned in  the  course  of  these  pages. 

"  Bishop  Cosin  was  there  constantly,  and  had  a  great  deal  of  talk  with  so  little 
Logick,  Natural  .or  Artificial,  that  I  perceived  no  one  much  moved  by  anything 
he  said.  But  two  Virtues  he  shewed  (though  none  took  him  for  a  Magician) : 
One  was,  that  he  was  excellently  well  versed  in  Canons,  Councils,  and  Fathers, 
which  he  remembered,  when  by  citing  of  any  passages  we  tried  him.  The  other 
was,  that  he  was  of  a  rustick  wit  and  carriage,  so  he  would  endure  more  freedom 
of  our  discourse  with  him,  and  was  more  affable  aad  familiar  than  the  rest." — 
Ibid. 

"  Bishop  Gauden  was  our  most  constant  helper ;  he  and  Bishop  Cosin  were 
seldom  absent.  And  how  bitter  soever  his  pen  be,  he  was  the  only  Moderator  of 
all  the  Bishops  (except  our,  Bishop  Reynolds) :  he  shewed  no  Logick ;  nor 
meddled  in  any  dispute,  or  point  of  learning;  but  a  calm,  fluent,  rhetorical 
tongue ;  and  if  all  had  been  of  his  mind,  we  had  been  reconciled  :  but  when  by 
many  days'  Conference  in  the  beginning,  we  had  got  some  moderating  Conces- 
sions from  him  (and  from  Bishop  Cosin  by  his  means)  the  rest  came  in  the  end 
and  brake  them  all."— Ibid. 

"  Dr.  Pierson  and  Dr.  Gunning  did  all  their  work  (beside  Bishop  Morley's 
discourses),  but  with  great  difference  in  the  manner.  Dr.  Pierson  was  their  true 
Logician  and  Disputant,  without  whom,  as  far  as  I  could  discern,  we  should  have 
had  nothing  from  them,  but  Dr.  Gunning's  passionate  invectives  mixt  with  some 
Argumentations :  he  disputed  accurately,  soberly,  and  calmly  (being  but  once  in 
any  passion)  breeding  in  us  a  great  respect  for  him,  and  a  persuasion  that  if  he 


"  ....  was  sent  over  by  Chancellor  Hyde,"  from  the  Hague,  "  to 
help  to  pave  the  way  for  "  Charles  II. *s  Restoration  :  to  <c  the  heads 
of  the  Presbyterian  party"  he  "avowed  himself  a  Calvinist,  because 
he  knew  that  they  entertained  the  most  favourable  opinion  of  such 
Churchmen  as  were  of  that  persuasion.  His  chief  business,  how- 
ever, in  this  kind  of  embassy,  was  to  confute  the  report  that  Charles 
II.  was  a  papist.  In  this  he  was  probably  more  successful  than  cor- 
rect." He  was  author  of  "An  Argument,  drawn  from  the  evidence 
and  certainty  of  sense  against  the  Doctrine  of  Transubstantiation," 
and  also  of  a  "  Vindication  of  the  Argument  drawn  from  sense 
against  Transubstantiation."  London,  1683. 

From  this  latter  work  I  extract  the  only  four  passages 
which  afford  any  clue  to  Bishop  Morley's  opinions,  so  far  as 
they  relate  to  the  Doctrinal  grounds,  on  which  he  probably 
counselled  the  insertion  of  the  Declaration  on  Kneeling :  the 
Italics,  etc.,  are  his  own:  the  first  occurs  when  explaining 
the  word  "  Mysteries,"  where  he  says  : — 

"  .  .  .  .  and  in  this  sense  likewise  both  the  Sacraments  may  be 
and  are  called  Mysteries,  but  especially  that  of  the  Lord's  Supper, 
which  none  were  permitted  to  be  present  at,  or  to  see  administered, 
in  the  Primitive  Church  of  old,  nor  are  not  in  Protestant  Churches 
at  this  day,  but  such  as  are  receivers  and  partakers  of  it.  And  from 
hence  the  word  Missa  or  Masse  came  to  be  taken  for  the  Sacrament 
itself ;  because  when  that  part  of  the  Divine  Service  (which  was  be- 
fore the  Sacrament,  and  at  which  the  Catechumeni  and  others  (that 
were  not  to  be  partakers  of  the  Sacrament  might  be  present)  was 
done,  "the  Deacon  dismissed  that  part  of  the  People  by  saying, 
Missa  est,  that  is,  Your  part  of  the  Service  is  done,  and  you  are  to 
depart;  and  then  none  staid  but  such  as  were  to  communicate, 
whom  they  called  fideles.  But  that  which  was  not  lawful  and 
counted  a  profanation  of  this  holy  mystery  in  the  Primitive  Church, 
is  now  in  the  Romish  not  only  counted  lawfull  but  meritorious ;  I 
mean  the  standing  by,  and  looking  on  the  celebration  of  the  Lord's 

had  been  independent,  he  would  have  been  for  peace,  and  that  if  all  "were  in  his 
power,  it  would  have  gone  well :  he  was  the  strength  and  honour  of  that  cause 
which  we  doubted  whether  he  heartily  maintained." — p.  364. 

"  Dr.  Gunning  was  their  forwardest  and  greatest  speaker ;  understanding  well 
what  belonged  to  a  disputant ;  a  man  of  greater  study  and  industry  than  any  of 
them,  well  read  in  Fathers  and  Councils ;  and  of  a  ready  tongue ;  (and  I  hear 
and  believe  of  a  very  temperate  life,  as  to  all  carnal  excesses  whatsoever)  :  but 
so  vehement  for  his  high  imposing  principles,  and  so  over-zealous  for  Ar- 
minianism,  and  Formality,  and  Church  Pomp,  and  so  very  eager  and  fervent  in 
his  discourse,  that  I  conceive  his  prejudice  and  passion  much  perverted  his 
judgment,  and  I  am  sure  they  made  him  lamentably  over-run  himself  in  his  dis- 
courses."— Ibid. 


Supper,  or  the  Masse  (as  they  call  it)  without  receiving  of  it." — 
pp.  17  and  18. 

The  other  passages  are  found  in  his  refutation  of  the  argu- 
ment— that  Transubstantiation  is  a  Miracle :  upon  which  he 
writes  thus : — 

"  (3rd.)  There  is  no  such  Miracle  as  Transubstantiation,  because 
God  never  works  any  miracle,  but  for  some  great  end,  and  such  a 
one,  as  cannot  be  obtained  without  such  a  miracle,  according  to  the 
old  and  true  saying,  both  in  Philosophy  and  Divinity,  Deus  nihil  agit 
frustra,  God  doth  nothing  in  vain.  But  supposing  a  Transubstan- 
tiation, or  a  miraculous  change  of  the  Bread  and  Wine,  into  the 
body  and  blood  of  Christ,  such  a  miracle  would  be  to  no  purpose  ; 
because,  as  Christ  himself  tells  them  (that  though  he  would  have 
given  them  his  very  flesh  to  eat)  the  Flesh  proflteth  nothing :  his 
meaning  is,  that  the  eating  of  his  flesh,  or  the  very  substance  of  his 
flesh  in  that  gross  and  carnal  manner,  as  they  then,  and  the  Papists 
now,  think  it  is  to  be  eaten,  would  doe  no  man  any  good  at  all. 
For  it  is  not  the  taking  of  Christ's  body  into  our  mouths,  in  the  very 
flesh  or  corporeal  substance  of  it  (if  it  could  be  so  taken)  that  can 
nourish  our  souls  into  everlasting  life ;  for  then  all  that  received  this 
Sacrament,  should  be  saved  ;  which  yet  they  doe  not,  nor  dare  not 
affirm  :  but  it  is  the  Spirit,  saith  Christ,  that  quickeneth,  that  is,  it  is 
the  spiritual  eating  of  his  flesh  and  drinking  of  his  blood,  that  nou- 
risheth  us  in  the  life  of  grace  here,  and  will  bring  us  unto  the  life  of 
glory  hereafter ;  and  according  to  this  manner  of  eating  and  drink- 
ing, it  is,  that  Christ  saith,  John  vi.  54,  that '  Whosoever  eateth  his 
flesh  and  drinketh  his  Hood,  hath  eternal  life ;'  and  in  order  to  the 
eating  and  drinking  of  Christ's  flesh  and  Christ's  blood  in  this 
spiritual  manner,  and  to  that  spiritual  end,  there  neither  is  nor  can 
be  any  need  or  use  of  Transubstantiation  ;  and  consequently  being 
of  no  Necessity,  nor  of  no  Use,  there  can  be  no  such  Miracle. 

"  (4th.)  And  lastly,  There  can  be  no  such  miracle  as  Transub- 
stantiation, because  all  Miracles  are  possible  ;  but  Transubstantiation 
is  impossible  as  implying  many  real  and  proved  contradictions  :  as 
the  being  of  Accidents  without  Subjects,  the  nourishing  of  Substances 
by  Accidents,  and  the  generation  of  other  Substances  out  of  the  cor- 
ruption of  Accidents;  as  likewise  that  there  should  be  a  Body 
without  quantity,  a  quantity  without  extension,  or  extension  without 
extending  itself  in  any  space  or  place  ;  Or  lastly,  that  one  and  the 
same  Body  should  be  in  diverse  places  at  one  time,  and  yet  not  fill 
any  place,  nor  be  in  any  of  the  spaces  betwixt  those  places,  and  con- 
sequently to  be  united  and  not  united,  divided  and  not  divided  ;  nay, 
that  the  same  body  which  is  in  Heaven  circumscriptive,  or  tanquam 
in  loco  proprie  dicto,  should  be  at  the  same  time  out  of  that  place, 
and  consequently  in  loco  and  extra  locum,  that  is  circumscribed  and 
not  circumscribed,  or  circumscribed  in  one  place  and  not  circumscribed 


325 

in  another :  Besides  many  others  the  like  inconsistencies  and  con- 
tradictions, which  you  may  see  demonstrated  at  large  in  Dr.  Whitaker, 
Bishop  Morton,  and  Mr.  Chillingworth.  Now  that  whatsoever  im- 
ply es  a  Contradiction  cannot  be  done,  no  not  by  miracle,  is  their  doc- 
trine, as  well  as  ours ;  because,  this  would  rather  argue  an  impo- 
tency  than  an  omnipotency  in  God. 

"  To  conclude  all,  Whereas  the  Author  of  this  Pamphlet  saith  that 
all  Catholics,  he  means  Romanists,  hold  that  Christ's  body  and  blood 
have  a  spiritual  presence  in  the  Sacrament ;  and  that  (saith  he)  being 
once  granted,  there  can  be  no  difficulty  in  believing  that  our  Saviour's 
body  and  blood  may  be  in  many  places  at  the  same  time,  because  it 
is  granted  to  all  Spirits. 

"  I  answer,  supposing  it  were  true  (as  it  is  not)  that  all  Romanists 
hold  Christ's  body  to  have  a  spiritual  presence  in  the  Sacrament,  and 
supposing  it  were  true  likewise,  that  a  true  humane  body  (as  Christ's 
is)  could  have  a  spiritual  presence,  that  is,  (as  I  suppose  his  meaning 
to  be)  could  be  present  as  Spirits  are  present  without  filling  the 
place,  or  space  wherein  they  are  ;  which  is  most  false.  For  a  Body 
cannot  be  a  body  and  no  body,  as  it  must  be  if  it  were  a  Spirit;  and 
nothing  can  have  the  presence  or  propriety  of  a  Spirit  but  a  Spirit : 
and  consequently  nothing  can  be  anywhere  as  a  Spirit  but  a  Spirit. 
But  supposing  (I  say)  it  were  true,  that  Christ's  body  were  in  the 
Sacrament  in  a  Spiritual  manner,  or  after  the  manner  of  Spirits,  yet 
would  it  not  follow  that  Christ's  body  could  be  in  diverse  places  at 
the  same  time.  For  no  created  Spirit  can  be  in  many,  or  in  more 
places  than  one  at  the  same  time,  no  more  than  a  Body  can.  Indeed 
there  is  a  difference  between  the  presence  of  a  Spirit,  and  the  pre- 
sence of  a  Body,  the  former  being  where  it  is,  definitive,  and  the 
other  circumscriptive;  But  that  which  is  definitive,  where  it  is,  cannot 
be  anywhere  else  than  where  it  is  at  one  and  the  same  time,  no 
more  than  that  which  is  circumscriptivd  ;  and  consequently,  to  be  in 
many  places  at  once,  is  as  inconsistent  with  the  nature  of  a  Spirit,  I 
mean  of  a  finite  and  created  Spirit,  as  it  is  with  the  nature  of  a  Body. 
For  the  Angel  Gabriel  was  not  with  the  Blessed  Virgin  at  the  same 
time  that  he  was  in  Heaven,  nor  in  heaven  at  the  same  time  that 
he  was  with  the  Blessed  Virgin ;  and  it  was  one  of  the  Arguments 
whereby  the  Ancient  Fathers  prove  the  Holy  Ghost  to  be  God,  be- 
cause He  may  be,  and  is,  in  many  places  at  the  same  time,  which  no 
Spirit  can  be  but  He  only. 

"  There  is  therefore  no  such  Miracle  as  Transubstantiation,  it 
being  not  only  a  useless  thing  if  it  were  so,  but  an  impossible  thing 
that  it  should  be  so." — pp.  23-27. 

Neither  of  these  passages  contains,  indeed,  any  direct  state- 
ment of  Bishop  Morley's  belief  on  the  Real  Presence  ;  indi- 
rectly, however,  they  furnish  some  clue  to  it,  and  to  the 
sense  in  which  he  must  have  sanctioned  the  Declaration  on 


326 

Kneeling  :  for,  in  the  first  place,  the  argument  drawn  (in  the 
passage,  p.  323)  from  the  (erroneously  alleged*)  rule  of  the 
Primitive  Church  and  the  custom  of  the  te  Protestant 
Churches  "  in  his  own  day,  to  prove  that  "  both  the  Sacra- 
ments may  be  and  are  called  Mysteries,  but  especially  the 
Lord's  Supper"  implies  the  belief  of  something  more  distinct 
and  peculiar  about  the  Eucharist  than  pertains  to  the  other 
Sacrament ;  if  not,  how  could  Bishop  Morley  account  for  the 
fact  that  Baptism  was  not  as  secretly  administered  as  he 
states  the  Eucharist  to  have  been  in  the  ancient  Church  ? 
What  could  account  for  the  desire  to  secure  the  Eucharist 
from  risk  of  profanation  (for  that  it  was  which  led  to  the 
actual  practice  of  the  Early  Church)  but  the  belief  of  Christ's 
true  Objective  Presence  therein  ?  Else  surely  it  mattered 
little  then,  and  matters  less  now  that  our  congregations  are 
not  divided  into  "  Catechumeni  and  others,"  who  was  or  is 
present  at  an  Office  which  claimed  to  be  no  more  than  a 
memorial  of  an  absent  Christ. 

But,  again,  his  argument  against  Transubstantiation,  while 
it  supports  the  language  of  the  Declaration  on  Kneeling, 
(especially  in  the  4th  passage,  which  is  a  contemporaneous 
commentary  on  the  final  clause  which  condemns  Ubiqui- 
tarianism),  is  in  no  way  adverse  to  such  language  concerning 
the  Presence,  as  I  have  all  along  contended  the  Declaration 
did  not  design  to  exclude ;  for  the  2nd  passage  (p.  324) 
shews  that  what  he  objected  to  was  any  notion  of  a  Real 
Presence  after  what  he  calls  a  "  gross  and  carnal  manner," 
such  as  the  Capernaites  misunderstood  our  Lord's  words  to 
mean ;  and  his  remark  that  any  oral  reception  "  of  Christ's 
body"  "in  the  very  flesh  or  corporeal  substance  of  it  was 
both  impossible  and  unbeneficial,"  shews  that  he  must  have 
understood  the  words  of  the  Declaration — "any  Corpora^ 
Presence  of  Christ's  natural  Flesh  and  Blood," — to  be  simply 
the  equivalent  of  gross  and  carnal,  i.e.,  Capernaiacal. 

But  in  the  absence  of  any  more  direct  proof  of  Bishop 
Morley 's  belief,  from  his  own  language,  it  is  most  natural  to 

*  On  this  point  I  venture  to  refer  the  reader  to  "  The  Anglican  Authority  for 
the  Presence  of  non-communicants  during  Holy  Communion.'-'— Masters,  1858. 


327 

quote  the  words  of  Bishop  Morton,  the  only  one  of  his  three 
authorities  whose  language,  in  the  lack  of  any  more  distinct 
reference,  I  can  satisfy  myself  he  may  have  referred  to  in  the 
3rd  passage  (p.  325).  The  Book  to  which  Bishop  Morley 
seems  to  refer,  is  the  Treatise  of  Bishop  Morton,  intitled, 
"  Of  the  Institution  of  the  Sacrament  of  the  Blessed  Bodie 
and  Blood  of  Christ  (by  some  called)  The  Masse  of  Christ," 
LONDON,  1631 ;  where,  at  p.  148,  he  writes  as  follows  : — 

"That  Protestants,  albeit  they  deny  the  Corporall  Presence  of 
Christ  in  this  Sacrament ;  yet  hold  they  a  true  Presence  thereof  in 
diverse  respects,  according  to  the  judgment  of  Antiquitie. 

"  Sect.  II. 

"  There  may  be  observed  four  Kindes  of  Truthes  of  Christ  his 
Presence  in  this  Sacrament :  one  is  Veritas  Signi,  that  is  Truth  of 
Representation  of  Christ  his  Body  ;  the  next  is  Veritas  Revelationis, 
Truth  of  Revelation ;  the  third  is  Veritas  Obsignationis,  that  is  a 
Truth  of  Seale,  for  better  Assurance  ;  the  last  is  Veritas  Exhibitionis, 
the  Truth  of  exhibiting  and  deliverance  of  the  Reall  Body  of  Christ 
to  the  faithfull  Communicants.  The  truth  of  the  Signe,  in  respect  of 
the  thing  signified,  is  to  be  acknowledged  so  farre,  as  in  the  'Signes 
of  Bread  and  Wine  is  represented  the  true  and  Reall  Body  and 
Blood  of  Christ,  which  Truth  and  Reality  is  celebrated  by  us,  and 
taught  by  ancient  Fathers,  in  contradiction  to  Manichees,  Marcionites, 
and  other  other  old  Heretikes  ;  who  held  that  Christ  had  in  himself 
no  true  Body,  but  merely  Phantasticall,  as  you  yourselves  well  know. 
In  confutation  of  which  Heretikes  the  Father  Ignatius  (as  your  Car- 
•dinall  witnesseth)  called  the  Eucharist  itself,  the  flesh  of  Christ. 
Which  saying  of  Ignatius,  in  the  sence  of  Theodoret  (by  whom  he  is 
<;ited  against  the  Heresie  of  his  time)  doth  call  it  the  Flesh  and 
Blood  of  Christ,  because  (as  the  same  Theodoret  expounded  himselfe) 
it  is  a  true  signe  of  the  True  and  Reall  Body  of  Christ :  and  as  Ter- 
tullian  long  before  him  had  explained  the  words  of  Christ  himself 
[this  is  my  Body~\  that  is  (saith  hee)  this  Bread  is  a  Sign  or  Figure 
of  my  Body.  Now  because  it  is  not  a  Signe,  which  is  not  of  some 
Truth  (for  as  much  as  there  is  not  a  figure  of  a  figure)  therefore 
Bread  being  a  signe  of  Christ's  Bodie,  it  must  follow  that  Christ  had 
a  true  Body.  This,  indeed,  is  Theological!  arguing,  by  a  true  Signe 
of  the  Body  of  Christ  to  confute  the  Hereticks,  that  denied  the  Truth 
of  Christ's  Body.  Which  controlleth  the  Wisdome  of  your  Councell 
of  Trent,  in  condemning  Protestants,  as  denying  Christ  to  be  Truly 
present  in  the  Sacrament,  because,  they  say,  he  is  there  present  in  a 
Signe,  or  Figure;  which  were  to  abolish  all  true  Sacraments,  which 
are  true  Figures,  and  Signes  of  the  things  which  they  represent." 

Here,  again,  we  have  another  illustration  of  the  meaning  of 


the  word  corporal  in  the  Declaration,  i.e.,  if,  as  it  cannot  be 
reasonably  doubted,  Bishop  Morley  (who  was,  it  must  be  re- 
membered, one  of  the  Reviewers  of  1662)  accepted  the  lan- 
guage of  Bishop  Morton  as  written  thirty  years  before ;  for 
the  latter  clearly  advocates  "a  true"  in  distinction  from  a 
"  Corporall  Presence  of  Christ  in  this  Sacrament,"  basing  his 
judgment  upon  the  teaching  of  primitive  antiquity,  and  de- 
precating the  Roman  condemnation  of  those  who,  "  because 
they  say,  that  Christ  is  there  [i.e.,  in  the  Sacrament]  present 
in  a  Signe,"  are  alleged  to  deny  that  He  is  f(  truly  present  in 
the  Sacrament." 

This,  however,  is  not  the  only  statement  of  Bishop  Morton 
on  the  Real  Presence  ;  and  as  Bishop  Morley  has  only  given 
a  general  reference  to  him,  it  is  desirable  to  know  what  he 
elsewhere  says  :  thus,  in  another  work  of  his,  the  "  Catholic 
Appeal"  (p.  93,  ed.  1610),  he  writes  (the  italics  here,  too,  as 
before,  are  his)  : — 

'*....  the  question  is  not  absolutely  concerning  a  Reall  Presence, 
which  Protestants  (as  their  own  Jesuits  witnesse)  do  also  professe ; 
Fortunatus  (a  Protestant)  holding  that  Christ  is  in  the  Sacrament 
most  really ;  Calvin  teaching  that  the  presence  of  Christ's  bodie  in 
respect  of  the  soules  of  the  faithfull,  is  truly  in  this  Sacrament,  and 
substantially  received :  with  whom  (they  say)  Beza  and  Sadael  (two 
other  Protestants)  do  consent,  which  acknowledgment  of  our  adver- 
saries may  serve  to  stay  the  contrarie  clamours  and  calumnious  accu- 
sations, wherein  they  used  to  range  Protestants  with  those  heretickes, 
who  denied  the  true  Bodie  of  Christ  was  in  the  Eucharist,  and  main- 
tained only  a  figure  and  image  of  Christ's  Bodie  :  seeing  that  our 
difference  is  not  about  the  truth  or  realitie  of  the  Presence,  but 
about  the  true  manner  of  the  being  and  receiving  thereof." 

Such  is  Bishop  Morton's  language  towards  the  Roman  side 
of  the  Eucharistic  controversy  :  now  let  us  see  how  he  speaks 
to  the  Puritan  opponents  of  the  Church  of  England.  In  a 
book  called,  "  A  Defence  of  the  innocencie  of  the  three  cere- 
monies of  the  Church  of  England,  viz.,  the  Surplice,  Crosse 
after  Baptisme,  and  Kneeling  at  the  receiving  of  the  blessed 
Sacrament:"  London,  1619: — he  thus  says  (p.  299): — 

"  Sect.  xl. 

"  Our  fourth  Confutation  of  the  non-conformists,  and  justification 
of  ourselves,  issueth  from  the  non- conformists  owne  Practise. 


329 

**  First,  by  their  Intentional  Reverence. 

"  You  would  account  it  an  extreme  injury  to  bee  censured  as 
contemners  or  prophaners  of  these  holy  mysteries ;  or  not  to  cele- 
brate and  receive  them  reverently,  with  the  truely  religious  affections 
of  your  hearts  and  mindes  :  which  you  professe  will  be  the  dutie  of 
every  worthy  Communicant  that  shall  rightly  discerne  in  this  Sacra- 
ment the  Lords  body.  This  being  granted  (which  without  impietie 
cannot  be  denied)  it  ministreth  unto  us  an  argument,  whereby  you 
may  be  comforted  (as  I  suppose)  without  all  contradiction. 

"  First,  I  may  reason  thus  :  that  manner  of  Reverence,  which 
it  is  lawfuil  for  a  Christian  to  conceive  in  his  mind,  the  same  is  as 
lawful  for  him  (the  case  of  scandall  excepted)  to  expresse  in  his  out- 
ward gesture  of  bodie.  But  it  is  lawfuil  for  a  Christian  to  conceive 
such  a  Relative  Reverence  ;  as  from  the  sight  of  the  Sacrament  (being 
Objectum  a  quo)  to  raise  his  thoughts  to  a  contemplation  of  the 
mysticall  and  spiritual!  object  of  faith,  signified  thereby:  and  upon 
the  understanding  of  the  mysticall,  even  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ 
really  (albeit  not  corporally)  exhibited  unto  us  in  this  Sacrament,  to 
receive  these  visible  pledges  of  our  redemption,  by  the  death  of 
Christ,  (as  the  Objectum  propter  quod}  with  all  holy  and  reverent  de- 
votion of  heart  and  mind.  Therefore  it  is  lawful  to  perform  a  sen- 
sible and  bodily  reverence  at  our  outward  receiving  thereof." 

There  are  two  other  Publications  by  Bishop  Morton*  which 
I  have  not  had  the  opportunity  to  examine  ;  but  those  already 
quoted  are,  I  think,  sufficient  for  the  purpose:  viz.,  to  ascer- 
tain whether  he  held  the  Doctrine  of  the  Real  Objective 
Presence  in  the  Eucharist :  the  language  cited  seems  to  shew 
that  he  did  :f  if  so,  then,  I  think,  it  must  be  allowed  that 
Bishop  Morley  held  it  too  ;  for  it  is  at  least  a  fair  presumption 
that  he  did  not  disapprove  the  language  of  Bishop  Morton, 
considering  the  general  way  in  which  he  refers  to  him  as  one 
of  those  who  demonstrated  the  "  inconsistencies  and  contra- 
dictions" of  the  Roman  doctrine:  consequently,  Bishop 
Morley  may  well  be  claimed  as  one  of  those  Reviewers  who, 
therefore,  could  have  had  no  further  design  in  urging  the  re- 
publication  of  the  Declaration  on  Kneeling,  than  to  guard 
against  a  belief  in  Transubstantiation,  which  his  own  language 
shews  him  to  have  opposed. 

*  Viz.  (1)  "  Apologia  Catholica,"  etc.,  and  (2),  "  Totius  doctrinalis  contro- 
versiae  de  Eucharistise  decisio,"  etc. 

f  Though  Mr.  Goode  (Nature  of  Christ's  Presence,  &c.p.  831)  says,  "  It  would 
be  difficult  to  name  any  one  who  has  more  expressly,  fully  and  learnedly  refuted 
the  doctrine  he  is  here  [viz.  The  Doctrine  of  the  Real  Presence  as  set  forth  in  the 
works  of  Divines  and  others  in  the  English  Church  since  the  Reformation.  Parker, 
Oxford,  1855.]  cited  in  support  of."  To  prove  this  he  quotes  from  the  "Catholic 
Appeal"  pp.  113,  1 18,  121  —  131 ;  but  the  extracts  seem  tome  not  to  the  purpose. 

U  U 


330 

Among  the  Divines  who  were  engaged  in  the  Savoy  Con- 
ference and  the  Revision  of  1662,  was  Dr.  Heylin  ;  he  thus 
writes  when  noticing  some  of  the  changes  in  the  English  Re- 
formed Communion  Office : — 

"In  the  first  Liturgy  of  King  Edward,  the  Sacrament  of  the  Lord's 
Body  was  delivered  with  this  benediction,  that  is  to  say,  '  the  Body 
of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  which  was  given  for  the  preservation  of 
thy  body  and  soul  to  life  everlasting ;  The  Blood  of  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,'  etc.,  which,  being  thought  by  Calvin  and  his  disciples  to 
give  more  countenance  to  the  gross  and  carnal  presence  of  Christ 
in  the  sacrament,  which  passeth  by  the  name  of  transilfostailtiatioil 
in  the  schools  of  Rome,  was  altered  into  this  form  in  the  second 
Liturgy,  that  is  to  say,  '  Take  and  eat  this  in  remembrance  that 
Christ  died  for  thee ;  and  feed  on  him  in  thy  heart  by  faith  with 
thanksgiving.  Take  and  drink  this,  etc.  But  the  revisers  of  the 
book  [in  1559]  joined  both  forms  together,  lest  under  colour  of  a 
Camal,  they  might  be  thought  also  to  deny  SUCll  a  real  presence  as 
was  defended  in  the  writings  of  the  ancient  Fathers.  Upon  which 
ground  they  expunged  a  whole  rubric  at  the  end  of  the  Communion 
service,  by  which  it  was  declared  that  kneeling  at  the  participation  of 
the  Sacrament  was  required  for  no  other  reason  than  for  a  significa- 
tion of  humble  and  grateful  acknowledging  of  the  benefits  of  Christ 
given  therein  unto  the  worthy  receiver,  and  to  avoid  that  profanation 
and  disorder  which  otherwise  might  have  ensued,  and  not  for  giving 
any  adoration  to  the  Sacramental  bread  and  wine  there  bodily  re- 
ceived, '  or  in  regard  of  any  real  and  essential  presence  of  Christ's 
body  and  blood.'  "  —Heylin.  Hist.  Ref.  Vol.  II.  p.  285.  Cambridge, 
1849. 

Now  if  Heylin  was  a  consenting  party  to  the  changes  of 
1662  (and  there  is  no  reason  to  suppose  that  he  was  not)  this 
passage  seems  to  prove  that  he  did  not  consider  the  Decla- 
ration, as  then  re-annexed,  to  militate  against  "  such  a  real 
presence  as  was  defended  in  the  writings  of  the  ancient 
Fathers :  "  though,  apparently,  he  thought  the  words  "  real 
and  essential,"  in  the  older  form,  might  seem  contrariant : 
and  alleges  (erroneously,  as  I  think  I  have  shewn)  that  the 
Elizabethan  Services  "expunged"  the  Edwardine  Declara- 
tion as  seemingly  denying  the  Patristic  Doctrine.  No  doubt 
the  change  of  language  proposed  by  Gunning,  as  Burnet 
tells  us,  and  adopted  by  the  reviewers,  satisfied  Heylin  by  re- 
moving any  doubt  which  might  attach  to  the  meaning  of  the 
Declaration  as  it  originally  stood  :  he  must,  therefore,  be 
regarded  as  another  witness — that  it  is  now  only  a  protest 


331 

against  a  "gross  and  carnal"  presence  of  Christ  iiithe  Sacra- 
ment," whether  implied  by  Transubstantiation  or  by  any 
other  theory  of  the  mode  of  Presence ;  even  if  these  pages 
fail  to  convince  any  that  it  was  not  designed*  to  be  more  than 
this  in  its  earlier  form. 

It  is  beyond  a  doubt  that  Bishop  Cosin's  Opinions  mate- 
rially influenced  the  course  taken  by  the  Reviewers  in  1662 : 
I  have  already  had  to  consider  carefully  such  of  his  Notes 
upon  the  Common  Prayer  as  bear  upon  the  questions  dis- 
cussed in  these  pages  :  his  latest  opinions  upon  the  Eucha- 
ristic  question  must  be  considered  to  be  contained  in  his 
"  History  of  Popish  Transubstantiation  ;  "  for  that  work  was 
written  in  1656,  six  years  only  before  the  last  revision  of  the 
Prayer  Book,  and  he  consented  to  its  publication  only  a  few 
months  before  his  death  in  Jan.  15,  1572:  so  that  here  we 
have  the  matured  convictions  of  the  last  fifteen  years  of  his 
life — convictions  be  it  remembered  which  he  maintained,  and 
which  therefore  must  have  influenced  his  decisions,  while 
engaged  upon  the  Review  of  the  Prayer  Book  in  1661-2:  it 
is  most  natural  then  to  turn  to  that  publication  for  an  expla- 
nation of  the  sense  in  which  he  accepted  the  Declaration 
when  consenting  to  append  it  to  the  Communion  Service  ;  and 
it  seems  to  me  that  that  sense  cannot  be  better  stated  than  by 
quoting  at  length  the  following  chapter : — 

"CHAPTER  III. 

"WHAT  THE  PAPISTS  DO  UNDERSTAND  BY  CHRIST  BEING  SPIRITU- 
ALLY PRESENT  IN  THE  SACRAMENT.  2.  WHAT  S.  BERNARD  UN- 
DERSTOOD BY  IT.  3.  WHAT  THE  PROTESTANTS.  4.  FAITH  DOTH 

NOT  CAUSE,  BUT  SUPPOSE  THE  PRESENCE  OF  CHRIST.  5.  THE 
UNION  BETWIXT  THE  BODY  OF  CHRIST  AND  THE  BREAD  IS  SACRA- 
MENTAL. 

*  Mr.  Fisher,  like  others,  seems  to  have  thought  (Lit.  Pur.,  p.  382),  that  it 
had  a  further  design,  for  he  says — it  will  be  remembered,  that,  not  only  was  the 
Romanizing  dogma  of  the  "Real  Presence"  virtually  abandoned  by  our  first  Re- 
formers, when  they  undertook  to  revise  the  Liturgy  for  the  second  time  in  the 
reign  of  Edward ;  but  that  the  very  word  '  Real'  was  then  deliberately,  and  with 
evident  design,  repudiated  by  them,  as  a  word  of  unsound  and  most  perilous 
import.  Notwithstanding  their  lingering  attachment  to  the  refinements  of 
Ratrainn  upon  the  meaning  of  this  term,  and  their  occasional  use  of  it  in  their 
own  writings." 

Mr.  Fisher's  error  in  this  passage  seems  to  lie  in  supposing  (though  I  am  not 
sure  he  means  as  much)  that  the  word  Real  was  eschewed  as  being  equivalent  to 
true ;  whereas  the  object  was  to  avoid  a  term  which  the  Roman  party  continually 
employed  to  denote  the  Presence  implied  in  Transubstantiation :  I  think  the  pre- 
ceding pages  shew  that  this  was  the  true  ground  for  the  avoidance  of  the  term. 


332 

"  Having  now,  by  what  I  have  said,  put  it  out  of  doubt  that  the 
protestants  *  believe  a  spiritual  and  true  presence  of  Christ  in  the 

*  I  venture  to  request  the  reader's  attention  to  §§  7,  8,  and  9  of  the  following 
document,  as  shewing  how  much  was  held  on  the  subject  of  the  Real  Presence 
by  certain  French  Protestants  only  thirteen  years  after  Bishop  Cosin's  death.  The 
whole  Paper,  (which  I  met  with  accidentally  some  five  years  ago)  is  so  inter- 
esting that  it  seems  worth  while  to  re-print  it  entire :  from  its  allusion  to 
"the  persecution"  which  its  authors  were  "under,"  it  appears  to  have  been 
elicited  by  the  prospect  or  the  fact  of  the  Revocation  of  the  Edict  of  Nantes  bv 
Louis  XIV.,  on  Oct.  12,  1685. 

"A  True  copy  of  a,  project  for  the  re-union  of  both  religions  in  France. 

*4  We  whose  names  are  here  underwritten,  Ministers  of  the  Reformed  Religion  ; 
being  desirous  to  carry  our  obedience  to  his  Majesties  Commands  as  far  as  the 
great  interest  of  our  Consciences  will  give  us  leave ;  and  hoping,  from  the  great 
goodness  of  his  Majesty,  that  in  consideration  of  this  our  compliance,  and  the 
steps  we  make  towards  the  Religion  he  professes,  he  will  be  pleas' d  to  command 
the  persecution  we  are  under  to  cease ;  do  promise  to  contribute,  what  lies  in 
our  power,  to  the  Religious  design  which  he  has  of  uniting  all  his  Subjects  under 
one  Ministery,  and  do  resolve  to  re-unite  ourselves  to  the  Gallican  Church, 
which  in  its  Pastoral  letter  does  likewise  say  that  they  will  yield  some  of  their 
right  in  favour  of  the  publick  Peace,  and  will  rectifie  those  things  that  want  re- 
dress, provided  the  wound  of  Schism  be  once  heal'd.  We  do  likewise  on  our 
side  engage  ourselves,  that  if  the  following  Articles  are  bona  Jlde  granted  to  us, 
we  will  with  all  our  hearts  give  his  Majesty  that  satisfaction  which  he  desires. 

"  1.  That  there  shall  be  no  Obligation  upon  any  body  to  believe  Purgatory, 
that  all  disputes  on  this  Article  shall  cease ;  every  one  speaking  with  great 
moderation  of  the  state  of  souls  after  this  life. 

•'  2.  That  the  pictures  of  the  Holy  Trinity  shall  be  taken  out  of  the  Churches ; 
and  those  which  shall  be  left  shall  be  only  as  Ornaments,  &c.  That  the  Pastours 
shall  carefully  instruct  the  people  to  avoid  upon  this  subject  the  abuses  which 
are  but  too  common  among  the  ignorant. 

"  3.  That  such  Relicks  of  Saints  as  shall  be  undoubtedly  ovm'd  to  be  true,  shall 
be  preserv'd  with  respect,  but  shall  not  make  any  essential  part  of  the  cult  of 
Religion,  and  that  none  shall  be  bound  to  Worship  them. 

"  4.  That  it  shall  be  taught  that  God  alone  is  the  true  Object  of  our  Adoration, 
and  that  the  people  shall  be  warn'd  not  to  attribute  to  any  Creature  though 
never  so  eminent,  that  which  is  peculiar  and  proper  to  God :  But  nevertheless 
sinoe  the  Saints  in  Heaven  do  concern  themselves  in  our  miseries  we  may  pray 
to  God  to  grant  that  to  the  Prayers  of  the  Church  triumphant,  which  the  in- 
difference and  coldnrss  of  Ours  cannot  obtain  from  Him. 

"  5.  That  amongst  the  Sacraments  of  Christian  Religion  Baptism  and  the  Eu- 
charist shall  be  reputed  the  chit-fest,  and  that  the  others  shall  have  the  Name  of 
Sacraments  in  a  more  large  Sense  only. 

"  6.  That  touching  the  necessity  of  Baptism  the  Canon  of  the  Council  of 
Trent  shall  be  the  Rule,  and  it  shall  not  be  intended  to  any  other  than  the 
natural  sense  of  these  words.  Si  quis  dixerit  Baptismum  liberorum  ad  salutem 
non  esse  necessarium  anathema  sit.  And  therefore  there  shall  be  no  modification 
to  the  tenth  Canon  of  the  preceding  Chapter;  which  declares,  that  it  is  not  law- 
ful for  all  persons  to  administer  the  Sacraments,  that  power  belonging  only  to 
the  Ministers  of  the  Go -pel  who  have  received  it  from  Jesus  Christ. 

"  7.  That  Jesus  Christ  is  really  present  in  the  Sacrament  of  the  Eucharist, 
though  the  manner  of  His  presence  be  incomprehensible  to  the  Wit  of  man,  and 
therefore  none  shall  be  oblig'd  to  define  the  manner  of  His  Presence,  neither 
shall  there  be  any  dispute  about  it,  since  it  passes  our  understanding,  and  that 
God  has  not  re  veal' d  it. 

"  8.  That  in  receiving  the  Sacrament  One  shall  be  in  a  posture  of  adoration, 
the  Communicants  at  that  time  paying  to  Christ  those  supreme  honours  which 


Sacrament,  which  is  the  reason  that,  according  to  the  example  of  the 
fathers,  they  use  so  frequently  the  term  spiritual  in  this  subject, — 
it  may  not  be  amiss  to  consider,  in  the  next  place,  how  the  Roman 
Church  understands  that  same  word.  Now  they  (Bell.,  de  Euch., 
1.  i.  c.  2.  §  3.)  make  it  to  signify,  *  that  Christ  is  not  present  in  the 

are  only  due  to  God ;  but  no  more  shall  be  exacted  from  any  body  for  the 
species  of  the  Bread  and  "Wine,  than  that  respect  we  pay  to  Sacred  things. 

"  9.  That  none  shall  be  obliged  to  kneel  before  the  Host,  except  at  the  Com- 
munion. 

"  10.  That  the  people  shall  have  the  Liberty  of  reading  the  Scripture,  which 
shall  be  read  publikly  in  the  Churches,  and  that  the  Service  shall  be  perform'd  in 
the  Vulgar  Tongue :  That  the  Cup  shall  be  given  to  the  people,  and  that  no  other 
Sacrifice  shall  be  own'd,  but  that  upon  the  Cross,  that  it  shall  be  taught  that 
Christians  have  but  one  victim  which  was  sacrificed  once  for  all,  and  that  the 
Eucharist  is  only  a  Sacrifice  of  commemoration  or  the  representation,  which  the 
true  Christian  makes  to  God  of  the  Sacrifice  of  the  Cross. 

"11.  That  before  we  be  oblig'd  to  receive  Auricular  confession,  all  abuses 
proceeding  from  it  be  redressed,  and  those  necessary  modifications  added,  which 
may  contribute  to  the  quiet  of  our  Consciences. 

"  12.  That  all  Fastings  and  other  Mortifications  shall  be  looked  upon  only  as 
helps  to  Piety,  and  to  preserve  us  in  a  state  of  Grace :  That  all  the  Orders  of 
Religious  Men  or  Women  shall  be  reform'd,  particularly  the  Mendicants ,  And 
those  only  shall  be  preserv'd  that  are  most  Antient,  such  as  the  Benedictines, 
together  with  the  Jesuits  and  Fathers  of  the  Oratory,  all  "which  shall  be  subject 
to  the  inspection  and  authority  of  the  Bishops  alone. 

"  13.  That  the  Ministers  shall  be  preserved  in  the  state  Ecclesiastick,  and  shall 
have  in  the  Church  a  particular  Eank  ;  except  only  those  who  have  been  twice 
married,  who  shall  be  consider' d  some  other  way. 

"  14.  That  Jesus  Christ  having  bestowed  on  his  Ministers  the  power  of  ad- 
ministering the  Sacraments  gratis,  that  they  shall  likewise  dispense  them  gratis, 
and  without  selling  them  as  is  now  practic'd. 

"  15.  That  the  people  shall  be  dispens'd  from  that  great  number  of  Holy  Days 
which  now  so  burthen  them,  and  shall  be  oblig'd  to  celebrate  only  the  Mysteries 
of  the  Nativity  and  Resurrection ;  with  those  of  the  Apostles  and  Saints  of  the 
first  century. 

"  16.  That  the  limits  which  the  last  Assembly  of  the  Clergy  of  France  have  set 
to  the  Pope's  authority  shall  be  inviolable,  and  that  as  to  the  Rank  he  is  to  have 
amongst  the  Bishops,  he  be  look'd  upon  only,  as  Primus  inter  pares. 

"17.  That  those  Observations  and  Ceremonies, which  are  beneath  the  Majesty  of 
the  Christian  Religion,  and  of  which  there  is  no  foot-steps  in  Antiquity,  shall  be 
abolish'd ;  such  as  Torches  at  Burials,  Canonizations,  Processions,  Pilgrimages, 
and  the  postures  of  the  Priests  at  the  Altar. 

"  18.  That  upon  all  questions  of  the  merit  of  good  Works,  and  the  power  of 
grace,  the  opinion  of  St.  Austin  shall  be  followed,  and  the  exposition  of  the 
Bishop  of  Meaux. 

"19.  That  the  gaining  of  Pardons  and  Indulgences  shall  be  reform'd,  &  that  the 
people  shall  be  instructed  aa  much  as  possible,  that  they  are  to  hope  for  the  remis- 
sion of  their  sins  by  the  blood  of  Jesus  Christ. 

"  May  the  Lord  send  down  His  Spirit  upon  men,  that  they  be  all  one  heart, 
and  one  soul,  and  that  we  may  in  our  days  see  this  blessed  Reunion.  It  is  the 
Vows  and  Prayers  of  all  good  people  of  both  Communions,  and  to  which  all  ought 
to  contribute  aocording  to  their  talent  both  by  word  and  writing.  Amen  fiat. 

Signed  by 

Dubourdieu 
La  Coste. 

And  above  sixty  more. 
London,  Printed  by  Randal  Taylor,  1685." 


334 

Sacrament,  either  after  that  manner  which  is  natural  to  corporal 
things,  or  that  wherein  His  own  Body  subsists  in  Heaven,  but  ac- 
cording to  the  manner  of  existence  proper  to  spirits  whole  and 
entire,  in  each  part  of  the  host;  and,  though  by  Himself  He  be 
be  neither  seen,  touched,  nor  moved,  yet  in  respect  of  the 
species  or  accidents  joined  with  them,  He  may  be  said  to  be  seen, 
touched,  and  moved  ;"  "and  so  (part  I.),  the  accidents  being  moved, 
the  Body  of  Christ  is  truly  moved  accidentally,  as  the  soul  truly 
changeth  place  with  the  body  ;  so  that  we  truly  and  properly  say, 
that  the  Body  of  Christ  is  removed,  lifted  up,  and  set  down,  put  on 
the  paten,  or  on  the  altar,  and  carried  from  hand  to  mouth,  and  from 
the  mouth  to  the  stomach  :"  "  as  Berengarius  (§  5)  was  forced  to 
acknowledge  in  the  Roman  council  under  Pope  Nicholas,  that  the 
Body  of  Christ  was  sensually  touched  by  the  hands,  and  broken  and 
chewed  by  the  teeth  of  the  priest."  But  all  this,  and  much  more  to 
the  same  effect,  was  never  delivered  to  us  either  by  Holy  Scripture 
or  the  Ancient  Fathers.*  And,  if  souls  or  spirits  could  be  present,  as 
here  Bellarmine  teacheth,  yet  it  would  be  absurd  to  say,  that  bodies 
could  be  so  likewise,  it  being  inconsistent  with  their  nature. 

"  2.  Indeed,  Bellarmine  confesseth  with  S.  Bernard,  that  *  Christ 
in  the  sacrament  is  not  given  to  us  carnally,  but  spiritually  :'  and 
would  to  God  he  had  rested  here,  and  not  outgone  the  Holy  Scrip- 
tures and  the  doctrine  of  the  Fathers.  For  endeavouring,  with  Pope 
Innocent  III.  and  the  Council  of  Trent,  to  determine  the  manner  of 
the  presence  and  mariducation  of  Christ's  Body  with  more  nicety 
than  was  fitting,  he  thereby  foolishly  overthrew  all  that  he  had  wisely 
said  before,  denied  what  he  had  affirmed,  and  opposed  his  own 
opinion.  '  His  fear  was,  lest  his  adversaries  should  apply  that  word 
spiritually,  not  so  much  to  express  the  manner  of  presence,  as  to  ex- 
clude the  very  substance  of  the  Body  and  Blood  of  Christ :  therefore, 
saith  he,  '  upon  that  account  it  is  not  safe  to  use  too  much  that  of 
S.  Bernard,  '  the  Body  of  Christ  is  not  corporally  in  the  Sacrament,' 
without  adding  presently  the  above  mentioned  explanation.  How 
much  do  we  comply  with  human  pride  and  curiosity,  which  would 

*  This  alleged  consequence  of  the  Presence  to  which  Bishop  Cosin  here  ob- 
jects may  perhaps  help  to  explain  his  meaning  in  the  passage  referred  to,  p.  138. 
With  his  objection  may  be  compared  the  language  of  the  Bishop  of  Brechin,— 
"  ...  Either  Christ  is  present,  or  He  is  not.  If  He  is,  He  ought  to  be  adored ; 
if  He  is  not,  cadit  questio, 

"  And  yet  this  does  not  involve  those  extreme  results  of  the  doctrine  mentioned 
before.  It  is  quite  compatible  to  hold  this,  and  yet  not  to  be  able  to  accept  the 
ceremonies  of  the  festival  of  Corpus  Christi,  or  of  the  Forty  hours'  Adoration. 
One  may  distinctly  believe  all  this,  and  yet  accept  the  words  of  the  Article  that 
"  the  Sacrament  of  the  Lord's  Supper  was  not  by  Christ's  ordinance . .  worshipped.' 
Our  Lord  oidained  the  Sacrament  to  be  the  perpetual  application  of  His  Sacri- 
fice, and  to  be  the  means  of  our  union  with  Him.  He  did  not  ordain  it  to  be  a 
Palladium  to  confine  His  Presence  to  certain  local  bounds.  Historically,  we 
find  evidence  of  the  reservation  of  the  Sacrament  in  the  very  earliest  times,  for 
the  purpose  of  communicating  the  sick.  The  reservation  for  the  purpose  of  ado- 
ration was  much  later."—  Charge,  p.  29,  2nd  Ed. 


335 

seem  to  understand  all  things  !  Where  is  the  danger  ?  and  what 
doth  he  fear,  as  long  as  all  they  that  believe  the  Gospel  own  the  true 
nature  and  the  real  and  substantial  presence  of  the  Body  of  Christ 
in  the  Sacrament,  using  that  explication  of  S.  Bernard  concerning 
the  manner,  which  he  himself,  for  the  too  great  evidence  of  truth, 
durst  not  but  admit  ?  And  why  doth  he  own  that  the  manner  is 
spiritual,  not  carnal,  and  then  require  a  carnal  presence  as  to  the 
manner  itself?  As  for  us,  we  all  openly  profess  with  S.  Bernard, 
that  the  presence  of  the  Body  of  Christ  in  the  Sacrament  is  spiritual, 
and  therefore  true  and  real  ;  and,  with  the  same  Bernard  and  all  the 
ancients,  we  deny  that  the  Body  of  Christ  is  carnally  either  present 
or  given.  The  thing  we  willingly  admit,  but  humbly  and  religiously 
forbear  to  inquire  into  the  manner. 

"  3.  We  believe  a  presence  and  union  of  Christ  with  our  souls  and 
body,  which  we  know  not  how  to  call  better  than  sacramental,  that 
is,  effected  by  eating  ;  that,  while  we  eat  and  drink  the  consecrated 
bread  and  wine,  we  eat  and  drink  therewithal  the  Body  and  Blood  of 
Christ,  not  in  a  corporal  manner,  but  some  other  way,  incomprehen- 
sible, known  only  to  God,  which  we  call  spiritual ;  for  if,  with 
S.  Bernard  and  the  fathers,  a  man  goes  no  further,  we  do  not  find  fault 
with  a  general  explication  of  the  manner,  but  with  the  presumption 
and  self-conceitedness  of  those  who  boldly  and  curiously  inquire  what 
is  a  spiritual  presence,  as  presuming  that  they  can  understand  the 
manner  of  acting  of  God's  Holy  Spirit.  We  contrariwise  confess, 
with  the  Fathers,  that  this  manner  of  presence  is  unaccountable  and 
past  finding  out,  not  to  be  searched  and  pried  into  by  reason,  but  be- 
lieved by  faith.  And,  if  it  seems  impossible  that  the  Flesh  of  Christ 
should  descend  and  come  to  be  our  food  through  so  great  a  distance, 
we  must  remember  how  much  the  power  of  the  Holy  Spirit  exceeds 
our  sense  and  our  apprehensions,  and  how  absurd  it  would  be  to  un- 
dertake to  measure  His  immensity  by  our  weakness  and  narrow  ca- 
pacity, and  so  make  our  faith  to  conceive  and  believe  what  our  reason 
cannot  comprehend. 

u  4.  Yet  our  faith  doth  not  cause  or  make  that  presence,  but  ap- 
prehend it  as  most  truly  and  really  effected  by  the  words  of  Christ ; 
and  the  faith  whereby  we  are  said  to  eat  the  Flesh  of  Christ  is  not 
that  only  whereby  we  believe  that  He  died  for  our  sins  (for  this 
faith  is  required  and  supposed  to  precede  the  sacramental  mandu- 
cation),  but  more  properly  that  whereby  we  believe  those  words  of 
Christ,  '  This  is  My  Body  ;' — which  was  S.  Austin's  meaning  when 
he  said,  '  Why  dost  thou  prepare  thy  stomach  and  thy  teeth  ?  Be- 
lieve and  thou  hast  eaten  (super  Joh.  tract,  25).'  For  in  this  mys- 
tical eating,  by  the  wonderful  power  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  we  do  in- 
visibly receive  the  substance  of  Christ's  Body  and  Blood,  as  much  as 
if  we  should  eat  and  drink  both  visibly. 

"  5.  The  result  of  all  this  is,  that  the  Body  and  Blood  of  Christ 
are  sacramentally  united  to  the  bread  and  wine,  so  that  Christ  is 
truly  given  to  the  faithful  [credentibus},  and  yet  is  not  to  be  here 


336 

considered  with  sense  or  worldly  reason,  but  by  faith,  resting  on  the 
words  of  the  Gospel.  Now  it  is  said,  that  the  Body  and  Blood  of 
Christ  are  joined  to  the  bread  and  wine,  because  that  in  the  cele- 
bration of  the  Holy  Eucharist  the  Flesh  is  given  together  with  the 
bread,  and  the  Blood  together  with  the  wine.  All  that  remains  is, 
that  we  should  with  faith  and  humility  admire  this  high  and  sacred 
mystery,  which  our  tongue  cannot  sufficiently  explain,  nor  our  hearts 
conceive." — Oxford  Trans.,  pp.  169 — 171. 

Such  being  Cosin's  own  statement  of  his  belief  upon  the 
Real  Presence,  it  may  be  well  to  compare  his  language  with 
that  of  the  Declaration,  and  observe  how  far  the  latter  ex- 
presses what  Cosin  held  to  be  the  judgment  of  antiquity. 
The  Declaration,  then,  states : — 

(I.)  That  Kneeling  at  the  Sacrament  is  "  a  signification  of 
our  humble  and  grateful  acknowledgment  of  the  benefits  of 
Christ  therein  given  to  all  worthy  receivers."  Bishop  Cosin 
says  (§  3),  "  We  believe  a  presence  and  union  of  Christ  with 

our  soul  and  body effected  by  eating  ;"  and  (§  5), 

"that  Christ  is  truly  given  to  the  faithful  [credentibus]." 

(II.)  The  Declaration  states  that  Kneeling  is  "for  the 
avoiding  of  such  profanation  and  disorder  in  the  Holy  Com- 
munion, as  might  otherwise  ensue."  Bishop  Cosin  indicates 
the  ground  of  profanation  when  he  says  (§  2),  there  is  a  "  real 
and  substantial  presence  of  the  Body  of  Christ  in  the  Sacra- 
ment," and  that  such  presence  is  objective  because  (§  4)  tf  our 
faith  doth  not  cause  or  make "  it,  "  but  apprehends  it  as 
most  truly  and  really  effected  by  the  word  of  Christ "  in  the 
act  of  Consecration  (§  3). 

(III.)  The  Declaration  denies  any  adoration*  to  be  intended 

*  Bishop  Burnet  thus  defends  Kneeling  as  a  posture  of  Adoration  in  the 
Eucharistic  Office  :  —  "  For  the  Posture,  it  is  most  likely  that  the  first  Institution 
was  in  the  Table-Gesture,  which  was,  lying  along  on  one  side.  But  it  was  appa- 
rent, in  our  Saviour's  practice,  that  the  Jewish  Church  had  changed  the  Posture 
of  that  Institution  of  the  Passover,  in  whose  room  the  Eucharist  came.  For 
though  Moses  had  appointed  the  Jews  to  eat  their  Paschal  Lamb,  standing  with 
their  loins  girt,  with  staves  in  the  hands,  and  shoes  on  their  feet ;  yet  the  Jews 
did  afterwards  change  this  into  the  common  Table- Posture :  of  which  change, 
though  there  is  no  mention  in  the  Old  Testament,  yet  we  see  it  was  so  in  our 
Saviour's  time;  and  since  He  complied  with  the  common  custom,  we  are  sure 
that  change  was  not  criminal.  It  seemed  reasonable  to  allow  the  Christian 
Church  the  like  power  in  such  things  with  the  Jewish;  and  as  the  Jews  thought 
their  coming  into  the  Promised  Land,  might  be  a  warrant  to  lay  aside  the  Pos- 
ture appointed  by  Moses,  which  became  travellers  best ;  so  Christ  being  now- 
exalted,  it  seemed  fit  to  receive  this  Sacrament  with  higher  marks  of  outward 


or  due  "  either  unto  the  Sacramental  Bread  or  Wine  there  bodily 
received,  or  unto  any  Corporal  Presence  of  Christ's  natural 
Flesh  and  Blood."  Bishop  Cosin  adopts  (§  2)  the  words  of 
S.  Bernard,  as  accepted  by  Bellarmine,  that  "  the  Body  of 
Christ  is  not  corporally  [i.e.  carnally]  in  the  Sacrament,  and 
declares  "  that,  while  we  eat  and  drink  the  consecrated  bread 
and  wine,  we  eat  and  drink  therewithal  the  Body  and  Blood 
of  Christ,  not  in  a  corporal  manner." 

(IV.)  The  Declaration  asserts  that  "the  Sacramental  Bread 
and  Wine  remain  in  their  very  natural  substances,"  and  that 
"  the  natural  Body  and  Blood  of  our  Saviour  Christ  are  in 
Heaven,  and  not  here ;  it  being  against  the  truth  of  Christ's 
natural  Body  to  be  at  one  time  in  more  places  than  one." 
Bishop  Cosin,  while  declaring  "it  would  be  absurd  to  say  that 
bodies  could  be "  "  present "  in  the  way  "  Bellarmine 
teacheth,"  "  it  being  inconsistent  with  their  nature  ;"  bids  us 
consider,  "  the  power  of  the  Holy  Spirit "  in  case  "  it  seems 
impossible  that  the  Flesh  of  Christ  should  descend  and  come 
to  be  our  food  through  so  great  a  distance ;"  and  states  (§  5) 
"  the  result  of"  his  argument  to  be  "  that  the  Body  and  Blood 
of  Christ  are  sacramentally  united  to  the  bread  and  wine." 

I  argued  (at  p.  73  of  this  Letter)  that  although  the  substi- 
tution of  "  corporal "  for  "  real  and  essential "  was  due  pri- 
marily, as  it  seemed,  to  Bishop  Gunning,*  the  majority,  at 

respect,  than  had  been  proper  in  the  first  Institution,  where  He  was  in  the  state 
of  humiliation,  and  His  Divine  Glory  not  yet  fully  revealed.  Therefore  in  the 
Primitive  Church  they  received  standing  and  bending  their  body,  in  a  Posture  of 
Adoration.  But  how  soon  that  Gesture  of  Kneeling  came  in  is  not  so  exactly 
observed,  nor  is  it  needful  to  know.  But  surely  there  is  a  great  want  of  in- 
genuity in  them  that  are  pleased  to  apply  these  Orders  of  some  latter  Popes  for 
Kneeling  at  the  Elevation  to  our  Kneeling ;  when  ours  is  not  at  one  such  part, 
which  might  be  more  liable  to  exception,  but  during  the  whole  Office ;  by  which 
it  is  one  continued  Act  of  Worship,  and  the  Communicants  kneel  all  the  while." 
— Hist.  Ref.  Part  ii.  Bk.  1,  p.  163,  fol.  1715. 

*  Mr.  Fisher,  having  observed  that  the  Declaration  was  omitted  in  Elizabeth's 
Book  "  for  the  purpose  of  propitiating  the  Romanists,"  thus  speaks  of  its  changed 
language  when  restored  in  1662.  "  Up  to  the  period  of  the  Restoration,  the 
balance  was  maintained  with  an  even  hand  between  the  two  opposing  parties — 
between  the  Romanizer  on  the  one  hand,  and  the  avowed  Protestant  on  the  other. 
But  when  in  the  eventful  year,  1662,  the  Liturgy  was  once  more  subjected  to  an 
authoritative  revision,  this  state  of  equilibrium  was  no  longer  maintained.  The 
Reviewers  of  that  year  laid  hold  of  the  discarded  Rubric  of  1552  :  and  had  they 
only  re -inserted  it  in  its  original  form,  they  would  then  indeed  have  conferred  an 

X  X 


338 

least,  of  the  Bishops  must  have  consented  to  the  change  :  the 
language  of  Bishop  Cosin,  just  cited,  is  sufficient  evidence 
that  he  was  one  who  could  have  had  no  difficulty  in  accepting 
the  alteration,  though,  in  all  probability,  he  was  indisposed 
to  Gunning's  alleged  theory  of  the  mode  of  Presence  not- 
withstanding that  Cosin  commonly  called  him,  in  1657,  his 
"  most  affectionate  friend  and  servant : "  whether  Burnet's 
account  of  Gunning's  theory  (see  p.  70)  be  accurate  or  not, 
there  seems  no  means  of  ascertaining:  perhaps  some  light 
would  be  thrown  upon  the  subject  if  we  could  find  "A  view 
and  connection  of  the  Common  Prayer,  1662"  which  Gun- 
ning is  said  to  have  written  (see  Chalmer's  Biog.  Diet.)  ;  but 
a  careful  search  and  inquiry  in  all  likely  quarters  has  failed 
to  discover  it. 

Here,  perhaps,  might  safely  be  left  the  oft-repeated  ques- 
tion— Does  not  the  Declaration  deny  a  Real  Objective  Pre- 
sence of  the  Body  and  Blood  of  Christ  in  the  Sacrament  of 
the  Lord's  Supper?  For  Bishop  Cosin's  language,  unless 
deprived  of  the  weight  justly  due  to  it  in  any  Historical 
answer,  seems  to  me  to  furnish  the  clear  reply — That  such  a 
Presence  is  not  only  not  denied,  but  is,  in  fact,  admitted  by 
the  very  terms  which  exclude  a  material  Presence.  Mr. 
Goode,  however,  in  his  "  Nature  of  Christ's  Presence  in  the 
Eucharist,"  has  made  some  statements  upon  this  point  which 
need  to  be  considered,  though  indeed  he  has  only  so  far 

inestimable  boon  upon  the  Church ;  by  re-establishing  one  of  those  wholesome 
barriers,  which  had  been  so  prudently  contrived  against  the  mischievous  inroads. 
of  Papal  doctrine. 

"  Such,  however,  was  not  the  design  of  Dr.  Gunning  and  his  Laudian  co- 
adjutors. They  re-inserted  the  Rubric,  it  is  true  :  but  they  re-inserted  it  in  an 
altered  form,  omitting  the  words  'real  and  essential'— obviously  the  most  im- 
portant in  the  passage  * — and  substituting  the  word  '  corporal'  in  their  place. 

"  Now  mark  the  inevitable  consequence  of  this  proceeding.  Such  a  substitu- 
tion, deliberately  and  designedly  made,  must  necessarily  be  considered  as  invol- 
ving nothing  less  than  a  positive,  though  tacit,  recognition  of  the  '  real  and 
essential"  as  distinguished  from  the  '•corporal'  presence;  and  consequently,  as 
having  established  a  most  plausible,  though  subtle  pretext,  for  the  maintenance 
of  one  of  the  most  dangerous  and  delusive  errors  ever  invented  by  the  great  de- 
ceiver of  mankind 

"Nor  have  the  leaders  of  the  present  'Tractarian'  movement  been  at  all  back- 
ward to  avail  themselves  of  the  support,  which  this  Rubric,  in  its  present  altered 
form,  so  palpably  affords  them."— Lit.  Pur.,  p.  382. 

*  I  need  scarcely  say  that  I  do  not  concur  In  Mr.  Fisher's  view  of  the  meaning  of  these 
words  in  the  original  Declaration;  my  argument  in  these  pages  being — that  they  were  only 
meant  to  be  equivalent  to  carnal. 


339 

noticed  the  above  very  important  Chapter  from  Bishop  Cosin, 
as  to  quote  part  of  §.  5  which,  with  deference  to  his  contrary 
view,  I  cannot  but  think  makes  entirely  for  the  case  of  the 
writers  he  is  opposing.  Thus,  then,  at  p.  30,  lie  says  : — 

" by  the  Rubric  at  the  End  of  the  Communion  Service 

repudiating  the  doctrine  of  the  corporal  presence  in  the  Lord's 
Supper,  because  it  is  against  the  truth  of  Christ's  natural  body  that 
it  should  be  in  more  than  one  place  at  the  same  time,  she  has  forbidden 
the  doctrine  that  there  is  a  presence  of  Christ's  natural  body  in  the 
Supper,  either  in  a  natural  or  supernatural  or  spiritual  manner,  and 
either  adjoined  to  the  elements,  or  distinct  from  them. 

The  Italics,  etc.,  here  and  in  the  following  quotations,  are 
Mr.  Goode's. 

Yet,  surely,  whatever  he  may  think  to  have  been  the  in- 
tention of  the  Declaration  (though,  indeed,  the  citations  in 
these  pages  appear  to  me  to  preclude  that  notion  of  intention 
conveyed  in  the  above  passage)  Mr.  Goode  has  no  right  thus 
to  wrest  its  language  from  its  literal,  grammatical  con- 
struction; what  is  denied  is  "any  Corporal  presence  of 
Christ's  natural  Flesh  and  Blood ;"  by  this,  says  Mr.  Goode, 

"  is  forbidden  the  Doctrine  of  "  Its  "  Presence either 

in  a  natural,  or  supernatural,  or  spiritual  manner  :"  a  natural 
Presence  of  Christ's  natural  Flesh  and  Blood  "  is  of  course  a 
"  Corporal"  Presence,  i.e.,  the  Presence  of  a  Body  after  the 
manner  of  a  Body,  and  therefore  is  denied  to  be  in  the 
Eucharist;  but  unless  a  "  supernatural,"  or  "  spiritual " 
Presence  is  necessarily  a  "  Corporal "  Presence,  then  neither 
such  "  manner  "  of  Presence  is  denied  by  the  terms  of  this 
Declaration. 

In  a  Note  to  this  passage,  p.  32,  Mr.  Goode  adds : — 

"  And  the  supposition  of  the  real  presence  of  the  body  in  a  super- 
natural way  is  a  mere  subterfuge,  resorted  to  for  the  purpose  of 
escaping  the  condemnation  of  the  Rubric,  but  in  vain,  because  such 
a  presence  is  a  corporal  presence." 

But  why  should  Mr.  Goode  impute  this  motive  to  the 
persons  of  whom  he  speaks  ?  He  may  think  their  notion  of 
a  supernatural  Presence  of  a  natural  Body  very  bad  philo- 


340 

sophy  :  still  if  they  say  that  they  do  not  mean  a  Corporal, 
i.e.,  material  Presence  with  form  and  quantity,  he  is  not 
warranted  in  speaking  thus ;  for,  to  say  the  least,  the  term 
supernatural  may  as  fitly  be  used  with  an  intention  to  exclude 
such  Presence,  as  were  any  of  the  strong  terms  which  I  have 
given,  at  p.  62,  in  the  List  No.  2  of  expressions  allowed  by 
those  Authorities  in  the  Church  of  England  of  whose  bond 
fide  acceptance  of  this  Declaration  Mr.  Goode  would  not,  I 
feel  sure,  raise  the  smallest  doubt.  And  when  we  recollect 
those  remarkable  words  of  our  Lord  (St.  John  iii.  13),  "  No 
man  hath  ascended  up  to  heaven,  but  he  that  came  down 
from  heaven,  even  the  Son  of  Man  which  is  in  heaven," — 
words  which,  I  suppose,  would  popularly  be  held  to  mean 
that  His  Body,  though  naturally  on  earth,  was  in  some  sense 
also  supernatural/'^  in  Heaven  through  its  union  with  the 
Divine  Word  Which  is  inseparable  from  the  Godhead — it 
may  not  be  thought  unfitting,  now  that  the  <f  Son  of  Man  " 
by  a  local  change  "  hath  ascended  up  to  heaven,"  to  call  His 
coming  "down  from  heaven/'  to  be  in  some  manner  in 
the  Holy  Eucharist  a  supernatural  Presence  ;  provided  only 
that  they  who  thus  speak  no  more  intend  what  the  Decla- 
ration calls  a  "Corporal"  Presence  than,  as  we  may  well 
believe,  did  our  Lord  when  uttering  the  words  related  by  the 
Evangelist. 

"  Supernatural  "  is  not,  however,  the  only  term  which  Mr. 
Goode  asserts  to  be  thus  condemned  by  the  Declaration  ;  for 
he  says  that  it  equally  forbids  "  a  Presence  of  Christ's 
natural  body  in  the  Supper, ....  in  a  ....  spiritual  manner:" 
yet,  at  p.  89,  he  appears  to  retract  this  expression  ;  for  he 
says  "  . .  .  that  glorified  Saviour  is  present  with  us  in  the 
rite.  His  human  nature  is,  in  a  spiritual  sense,  really  present 
with  us,  though  not  bodily."  I  assume  that  he  does  not 
mean  to  draw  a  distinction  between  the  words  "  sense  "  and 
"  manner ;"  and  the  illustration  which  he  annexes  warrants 
me,  I  think,  in  so  doing ;  for  he  says  immediately  : — 

"  As  the  sun,  though  bodily  far  away  from  us,  is  really  present 
with  us  when  we  have  the  presence  of  his  light  and  heat,  so  the 
human  nature  of  Christ,  though  bodily  far  away  from  us,  is  enabled 


341 

by  that  Spirit  to  which  it  is  united,  to  be  present  in  power  and  in- 
fluence throughout  the  earth,  and  thus  to  communicate  to  those  who 
by  a  living  faith  are  united  to  it,  as  the  members  of  a  body  to  the 
head,  those  spiritual  energies  and  graces  that  dwell  in  it  abundantly 
for  communication  to  the  members  of  His  mystical  body,  the  true 
Church." 


The  illustration  here  used  by  Mr.  Goode  has  already  been 
noticed  in  these  pages  as  having  been  employed  by  others  : 
thus,  at  p.  73,  Bishop  Gardiner  was  mentioned  as  having  cited 
it  with  approbation  from  Bucer ;  and  Archbishop  Cranmer 
was  quoted  as  saying  in  reply,  "  In  this  comparison,  I  am 
glad  that,  at  the  last  we  be  come  so  near  together ;  for  you 
be  almost  right  heartily  welcome  home,  and  I  pray  you  let 
us  shake  hands  together."  But  Cranmer  alleged  that  "  Martin 
Bucer  saith  not  so  much  as  you  do."  I  said,  too,  p.  75,  that 
"  the  illustration  here  used  is  Ridley's  also."  Again,  at  p. 
245,  the  same  simile  is  referred  to  as  having  been  quoted  by 
Harding  from  Bucer ;  and  Jewel  was  there  shewn  to  have 
readily  accepted  the  comparison  as  one  that  "putteth  the 
matter "  of  a  "  fleshly  "  Presence  "  out  of  all  question," 

though  proving  that  "  Christ is  present  with  us 

in  the  Sacrament  of  His  body  and  blood," 

Now  the  supposed  aptness  and  value  of  the  illustration  is 
shewn  by  the  very  fact  of  its  being  thus  resorted  to  by  these 
seven  writers,  ws.,  two  noted  Roman  controversialists,  Gardiner 
and  Harding;  three  leading  Reforming  Bishops,  Cranmer, 
Ridley,  and  Jewel ;  one  principal  Foreign  Reformer,  Bucer; 
and  lastly  by  Mr.  Goode.  The  lack  of  agreement  in  their 
application  of  the  illustration  may  have  arisen,  less  from  an 
unwillingness  to  arrive  at  a  common  understanding  of  terms, 
than  from  the  difficulty  of  deciding  a  question  which  (though 
perhaps  more  capable  of  being  solved  now  than  three  cen- 
turies ago)  even  yet  does  not  admit  of  a  satisfactory  reply 
owing  to  our  still  limited  knowledge — perhaps  real  igno- 
rance— of  the  actual  nature  and  properties  of  matter.  That 
question  is — CAN  THE  PRESENCE  OF  THE  SUN  IN  THE 

EARTH  BE  TRULY  REGARDED  AS  ANYTHING  MORE  THAN 

WHAT  is  CALLED  A  virtual  PRESENCE?     For,  if  it  can  be  so 


342 

regarded,  then,  possibly,  it  offers  the  truest  analogy  of  the 
Heal  Presence  in  the  Eucharist,  and  admits  of  being  pursued 
with  reverence  to  the  farthest  limits  which  must  bind  every 
comparison  of  things  Spiritual  and  Material:  while  the 
fact  that  our  Lord  is  spoken  of  in  Holy  Scripture  as  "  The 
Sun  of  Righteousness  "  (Mai.  iv.  2)  would  of  itself  naturally 
prompt  a  resort  to  that  "  Sun"  which  "  He  maketh"  "to  rise 
on  the  evil  and  on  the  good  "  (S.  Matt.  v.  17),  when  a  figure 
was  needed  which  might  serve  the  best  to  explain  His 
own  Sacramental  Presence  in  His  Church. 

I  am  not  so  presumptuous  as  to  think  that  I  can  now,  any 
more  than  when  formerly  noticing  the  point,  at  p.  75  of  the 
original  Letter,  contribute  any  suggestions  which  will  mate- 
rially tend  towards  answering  the  Enquiry  ;  but  it  may  not 
be  out  of  place,  or  overbold,  to  state  here  some  few  thoughts 
which  seem  to  bear  upon  the  subject,  and  which  appear  to 
me  not  less  worthy  of  a  little  consideration  than  I  ventured 
to  regard  them  as  being,  four  years  ago,  though  at  that  time 
the  opportunity  of  mentioning  them  did  not  occur. 

It  would  be  strange  if  the  great  advance  made  in  Physical 
Science  since  the  16th  century,  furnished  no  fuller  or  more 
accurate  methods  of  elucidating  Theological  Questions  by 
Natural  Phenomena  than  were  available  to  controversialists 
Three  Hundred  Years  ago :  it  was  no  fault  of  theirs  that 
they  did  not  apply  scientific  facts  or  theories  which  had  then 
to  be  invented  or  discovered :  but  the  very  circumstance, 
that  they  did  use  them  so  far  as  their  knowledge  enabled 
them,  implies  how  they  would  have  acted  now;  and  fully 
justifies  us  in  having  recourse  to  them  under  their  more 
developed  aspects. 

Archbishop  Cranmer  (Ans.  to  Gardiner,  p.  89)  had  drawn 
this  "  comparison  ": — 

"  They  say,  that  Christ  is  corporally  in  many  places  at  one  time, 
affirming  that  his  body  is  corporally  and  really  present  in  as  many 
places  as  there  be  hosts  consecrated.  We  say,  that  as  the  Sun 
Corporally  is  ever  in  heaven,  and  no  where  else,  and  yet  by  his 
operation  and  virtue  the  Sun  is  here  in  earth,  by  whose  influence 
and  virtue  all  things  in  the  world  be  corporally  regenerated,  in- 


343 

Creased,  and  grow  to  their  perfect  state  ;  so  likewise  our  Saviour 
Christ  bodily  and  corporally  is  in  heaven,  sitting  at  the  right  hand 
of  his  Father,  although  spiritually  he  hath  promised  to  be  present 
With  us  upon  earth  unto  the  world's  end." 

Bishop  Gardiner,  in  replying  to  this,  had  said :  — 

"  But  to  the  purpose  of  this  similitude  of  the  Sun,  which  Sun, 
this  author  saith,  'is  only  corporally  in  heaven,  and  no  where  else/ 
and  in  the  earth  the  Operation  and  virtue  of  the  sun :  so  as  by 
this  author's  supposal,  the  Substance  of  the  Sun  should  not  be  in 
earth,  but  only  by  operation  and  virtue:  wherein  if  this  author 
erreth,  he  doth  the  reader  to  understand,  that  if  he  can  in  con- 
sideration of  natural  things,  it  is  no  marvel  though  he  err  in 
heavenly  things.  For,  because  I  will  not  of  myself  begin  the  con- 
tention with  this  author  of  the  natural  work  of  the  Sun,  I  will  bring 
forth  the  saying  of  Martin  Bucer,  ....  he  useth  the  similitude  of 
the  Sun  for  his  purpose,  to  prove  Christ's  body  present  really  and 
Substantially  in  the  sacrament,  where  this  author  useth  the  same 
similitude  to  prove  the  body  of  Christ  really  absent." — p.  90. 

Then  Gardiner  proceeds  to  quote  the  passage  from  Bucer 
as  already  given  at  p.  73,  and  adds : — 

"  Thus  hath  Bucer  expressed  his  mind,  whereunto,  because  the 
similitude  of  the  Sun  doth  not  answer  in  all  parts,  he  noteth  wisely 
in  the  end,  how  this  is  a  matter  of  faith,  and  therefore  upon  the 
foundation  of  faith  we  must  speak  of  it,  thereby  to  supply  where 
our  senses  fail.  For  the  presence  of  Christ,  and  whole  Christ,  God 
and  man,  is  true,  although  we  cannot  think  of  the  manner  '  how.' 
The  chief  cause  why  I  bring  in  Bucer  is  this,  to  shew  how,  in  his 
judgment,  we  have  not  only  in  earth  the  operation  and  virtue  of  the 
Surt,  but  also  the  Substance  of  the  Sun,  by  means  of  the  Sun-beams, 
which  be  of  the  same  Substance  with  the  Sun,  and  cannot  be  divided 
in  substance  from  it ;  and  therefore  we  have  in  earth  the  Substan- 
tial presence  of  the  Sun,  not  only  the  operation  and  virtue.  And 
howsoever  the  Sun  above  in  the  distance  appeareth  unto  us  of 
another  sort,  yet  the  beams  that  touch  the  earth  be  of  the  same 
Substance  with  it,  as  clerks  say,  or  at  least  as  Bucer  saith,  whom  I 
never  heard  accompted  papist ;  and  yet  for  the  real  and  Substantial 
presence  of  Christ's  very  body  in  the  sacrament,  writeth  pithily  and 
plainly,  and  here  encountereth  this  author  with  his  similitude  of  the 
sun  directly  ;  whereby  may  appear,  how  much  soever  Bucer  is 
esteemed  otherwise,  he  is  not  with  this  author  regarded  in  the  truth 
of  the  sacrament,  which  is  one  of  the  high  mysteries  of  our  re- 
ligion."— p.  90. 

It  was  by  way  of  rejoinder  to  these  arguments  that  Cran- 
mer  employed  the  language  before  cited  at  pp.  74  and  75, 
wherein  he  seems  to  rest  his  difference  with  Gardiner  solely 


344 

upon  this  one  point,  which  the  Roman  controversialist  called 
"  the  substantial  presence  of  the  sun ;"  for,  though  he  says 
"if  the  substance  of  the  sun  be  here  corporally  present 
with  us  upon  earth,  then  I  grant  that  Christ's  body  is  so 
likewise,"  and  observes  that  "  Bucer  saith  not  so  much  as  " 
Gardiner,  he  asks,  "  and  yet  if  you  both  said  that  the  beams 
of  the  Sun  be  of  the  same  substance  with  the  Sun,  who 
would  believe  either  of  you  both  ?" 

Gardiner  had  endeavoured,  apparently,  to  guard  himself 
against  misunderstanding  as  to  his  use  of  the  term  corporally, 
by  saying : — 

"  The  word  '  corporally '  may  have  an  ambiguity  and  doubleness 
in  respect  and  relation  :  one  is  to  the  truth  of  the  body  present,  and 
so  it  may  be  said,  Christ  is  corporally  present  in  sacrament ;  if  the 
word  corporally  be  referred  to  the  manner  of  the  presence,  then 
we  should  say,  Christ's  body  were  present  after  a  corporal  manner, 
which  we  say  not,  but  in  a  Spiritual  manner;  and  therefore  not 

locally  nor  by  manner  of  quantity,  but  in  such  manner  as  God 

only  knoweth,  and  yet  doth  us  to  understand  by  faith  the  truth  of 
the  very  presence,  exceeding  our  capacity  to  comprehend  the 
manner  'how.' — p.  89. 

In  the  argument  between  Jewel  and  Harding  upon  "  the 
similitude  of  the  Sun,"  the  question  did  not  actually  arise — 
whether  the  beams  be  of  the  same  substance  with  the  Sun? 
Jewel  seems  to  have  thought  it  enough  to  confute  a  Corporal 
Presence  in  the  Eucharist  by  the  allegation  (which  of  course 
Harding  would  allow)  that  a  the  Sun  is  more  comfortable, 
and  more  refresheth  the  world,  being  absent,  by  his  beams, 
than  if  his  very  natural  substance  and  compass  lay  here  upon 
the  earth."  In  thus  using  the  term  "  compass  "  Jewel  may 
fairly  be  taken  to  have  indicated  the  exact  sense  in  which  he 
employed  the  words  "  very  natural  substance ;"  namely,  as 
necessarily  implying,  in  his  argument,  form  and  quantity,  and 
so  that  sort  of  local  physical  Presence  in  which  it  was  essen- 
tial to  disavow  any  belief:  though  it  does  not,  I  think,  follow 
that  he  would  have  denied  the  possibility  of  a  substantial 
presence  of  the  Sun  in  the  Earth,  which  might  more  fitly  be 
called  a  "  very  natural "  presence  than  one  of  mere  "  opera- 
tion and  virtue." 


345 

The  great  controversial  Theologians  of  the  16th  Century, 
such  as  these  whose  statements  have  just  been  quoted,  could 
hardly  be  ignorant  altogether  of  the  theories  then  in  existence 
respecting  the  nature  of  Light  and  Heat,  and  so  of  their 
bearing  upon  this  question  of  the  character  of  the  Solar 
Rays ;  even  though,  as  is  likely  enough,  they  may  not  have 
thought  it  needful  to  take  any  definite  view  themselves  of  the 
subject:  their  acquaintance,  e.g.,  with  the  writings  of 
S.  Thomas  Aquinas  was  sufficient  to  afford  them  some  infor- 
mation on  the  matter :  he  had  discussed  the  question  (Pars, 
prima.  quaest.  67.  Art.  2  and  3) — Whether  light  was  a  body  or 
a  quality — and  had  concluded  against  the  corporal  theory  for 
this  reason,  among  other  grounds  of  objection — "  That  two 
bodies  cannot  be  together  in  the  same  place :  but  the  light 
is  with  the  air  :  therefore  light  is  not  a  body." 

Probably,  however,  it  is  not  assuming  too  much  to 
assert — that  what  is  now  known  of  the  nature  of  the  Sun's 
light  would  lead  Philosophers  to  reject,  as  an  absolutely 
true  proposition,  Aquinas's  premiss,  "  That  two  bodies  cannot 
be  together  in  the  same  place;"  and  with  it,  his  conclusion 
that  "  light  is  not  a  body."  For,  whether  we  adopt  the  New- 
tonian (i.e.,  the  Corpuscular)  theory,  which  regards  Light  as 
a  peculiar  matter  projected  in  all  directions  from  Luminous 
Bodies  in  a  rapid  succession  of  particles — a  theory  which 
appears  very  similar  to  that  of  Vision  held  by  Pythagoras ; 
or  whether  (having  regard  to  the  fact  of  the  polarization  of 
Light,  which  has  revived  the  Doctrine  of  Descartes  and 
others)  we  accept  the  Undulatory  theory,  which  maintains 
that  a  highly  attenuated  fluid  or  ether  is  universally  diffused 
throughout  space,  and,  though  inappreciable  by  our  senses 
while  at  rest,  is  thrown  into  a  succession  of  waves  when 
acted  upon  by  a  luminous  body:  it  seems  that  all  the 
known  phenomena  of  Light  may  be  explained  upon  either 
hypothesis. 

Moreover,  whichever  hypothesis  is  adopted,  it  is  held  that 
Light  must  be  regarded  as  a  MATERIAL  SUBSTANCE,  pos- 
sessed of  certain  properties,  from  which  this  character  of  it 

Y  Y 


346 

is  argued :  such  are — its  capability  of  deflection  ;  its  being 
arrested  by  some  bodies,  though  passing  through  others  ;  its 
reflection  by  polished  surfaces ;  its  condensation  and  diffu- 
sion in  passing  through  certain  media ;  its  producing 
chemical  changes ;  its  absorption  and  spontaneous  emission 
from  particular  substances,  e.g.,  the  Diamond  which,  having 
been  exposed  to  the  Sun's  rays,  continues  to  shine  in  the 
dark  for  a  short  time. 

Further,  these  theories  about  Light  are  held  to  be  mostly 
applicable  to  Heat  also ;  and,  as  the  Rays  of  the  Sun 
furnish  Heat  as  well  as  Light,  so  the  belief  in  the  Ma- 
teriality of  those  Rays  receives  a  further  confirmation ; 
indeed  it  is  thought  that  Light  and  Heat  may  be  only  modi- 
fications of  the  same  Matter,  inasmuch  as  in  the  Sun's  Rays 
they  are  so  blended  that  hitherto  Science  has  not  been  able 
entirely  to  separate  them. 

Without,  then,  resting  too  much  upon  present  conclusions 
of  Science  which  future  discoveries  *  may  vary,  it  can  scarcely 
be  considered  unphilosophical  now  to  hold  as,  at  least,  a  pro- 
bable opinion — "  that  the  beams  of  the  Sun  be  of  the  same 
substance  with  the  Sun" — and  it  may  be  presumed  that 
were  Archbishop  Cranmer  living  in  the  present  day  he  would 
hardly  feel  warranted  in  saying,  of  Gardiner  and  Bucer  (if 
they  still  asserted  their  belief  in  corporeiety,  and  he  in 
quality)  "  Who  would  believe  either  of  you  both?" 

Yet  this  conviction  of  their  Materiality  and  Identity  with 
the  Sun  by  no  means  implies  a  LOCAL  presence  of  what 
Bishop  Jewel  called  the  "very  natural  substance  and  com- 
pass" of  the  Sun  itself  wherever  the  Beams  of  that 
Luminary  are  present.  It  may  be  permitted,  surely,  to  hold 
without  reproach — that  they  are  the  same  THING,  though  not 
after  the  same  MANNER, 

Again :  it  will  probably  be  generally  admitted  that  the 
Sun's  Rays,  i.e.,  his  Material  Light  and  Heat  do  combine 
with ;  interpenetrate ;  occupy  the  same  space  as ;  are,  in 

*  See,  e.g.,  the  recent  discovery  of  Iron  and  Magnesium  in  the  Solar 
Atmosphere. — "  Researches  on  the  Solar  Spectrum,"  etc.,  Edinburgh  Review, 
October,  1862. 


347 

fact,  in,  with,  and  under  other  Bodies,  whose  Materiality  is 
appreciable  to  the  senses  in  ways  which  cannot  be  predicated 
of  the  Sun's  Beams.  And  this  being  so,  it  follows,  upon 
the  theory  of  their  identity  with  the  Sun,  that  the  same 
admission  may  be  fairly  asked  and  readily  conceded  touching 
the  SUN  itself. 

There  are  two  ways  in  which  THE  SUN  can  be  regarded  as 
thus  substantially  present :  for  the  sake  of  distinctness  they 
may  be  called  General  and  Special.  By  General,  I  mean  its 
ordinary  diffusion,  by  means  of  its  Beams,  through  the 
Material  World:  by  Special,  I  intend  its  particular  localiza- 
tion when,  those  Beams  being  brought  to  a  focus  in  a  Lens 
or  Mirror,  a  distinct  Image  is  formed  of  the  Heavenly 
Luminary.  It  is  hardly  necessary  to  point  out  that  these 
two  modes  of  Presence  are  npt  only  diverse  in  their  character, 
but  also  distinct  in  their  effects :  the  former  being,  what 
may  be  called,  an  Atmosphere  of  Heat  and  Light,  whose 
Influence  is  everywhere  naturally  exerted  in  some  degree 
upon  all  Objects  in  Nature  coming  within  it:  the  latter 
being  a  precise  spot  where  that  Heat  and  Light  are  scienti- 
fically centred  and  brought  to  act  upon  some  given  object 
selected  for  their  peculiar  and  more  powerful  operation. 

Now,  it  seems  to  me,  that  these  considerations  may 
reverently  be  used  analogically  to  explain  and  illustrate 
those  two  kinds  of  the  DIVINE  PRESENCE  which  are  com- 
monly known  as  the  Universal  and  the  Particular:  the  First 
being  expressed  in  that  question  concerning  His  Omni- 
presence which  God  asked  through  the  Prophet  Jeremiah, 
(xxiii.  23,  24),  "Am  I  a  God  at  hand,  saith  the  Lord,  and 
not  a  God  afar  off?  Can  any  hide  himself  in  secret  places 
that  I  shall  not  see  him  ?  saith  the  Lord.  Do  not  I  fill 
heaven  and  earth?  saith  the  Lord."  The  Second  being 
described  in  that  promise,  "My  Presence  shall  go  with 
thee,"  which  God  made  to  Moses,  who  (when  oppressed  with 
the  burden  of  care  for  the  people)  complained,  "  Thou  hast 
not  let  me  know  whom  Thou  wilt  send  with  me."  (Exodus 
xxxiii.  12,  14.)  Of  both  these  manifestations  of  God's 


348 

Presence  it  is  alike  true  that  they  were  God  in  the  Verity  of 
His  Eternal  Substance,  exhibiting  Himself,  and  operating 
diifusedly  or  concentratedly  (so  to  say) ;  though  He  speaks 
of  Himself,  and  is  spoken  of,  as  having  a  local  habitation,  as 
when  Job  asks,  (xxii.  12),  "  Is  not  God  in  the  height  of 
heaven,"  or  when  Micaiah  declared,  (1  Kings  xxii.  19),  "  I 
saw  the  LORD  sitting  on  His  throne,  and  all  the  host  of 
heaven  standing  by  Him  on  His  right  hand  and  on  His 
left." 

But  it  is  more  to  my  present  purpose  to  apply  this  analogy 
to  that  remarkable  distinction  between  the  Old  Dispensation 
and  the  New,  which  St.  Paul  so  precisely  points  out  in  the 
Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  (x,  1)  when  he  speaks  of  "the  Law 
having  a  shadow  (<r>tia.v)  of  good  things  to  come,  and  not  the 
very  image  (otvrw  rw  i?xo»a)  of  the  things."  The  Law  was, 
and  the  Gospel  is,  as  his  words  seem  to  mean,  an  exhibition 
upon  Earth  of  the  "good  things  [which  are  even  yet]  to 
come."  (ix.  11.)  What  those  "good  things"  are,  may  be 
gathered  from  the  fact  of  "  Christ  being  come  an  high  Priest 
of"  them ;  for  in  the  discharge  of  His  Sacerdotal  Functions 
of  Oblation  and  Intercession — begun  on  Earth  and  con- 
tinued, by  reason  of  His  "  unchangeable  Priesthood,  (vii.  24), 
when  "  He  entered  in  once  "  for  all  "  into  "  Heaven  "  the 
Holy  Place" — He  "obtained  eternal  redemption  for  us," 
(ix.  12),  "  perfected  for  ever  them  that  are  sanctified," 
(x.  14),  "is  able  to  save  them  to  the  uttermost  that  come 
unto  God  by  Him,  seeing  He  ever  liveth  to  make  inter- 
cession for  them."  (vii.  25.)  Thus  by  His  Atonement  He  is 
working  out  that  Reconciliation  and  Peace  which  are  to 
result  in  such  a  Perfection  of  His  Mystical  Body,  as  will 
fully  realize  the  Psalmist's  words,  (Psalm  xvi.  11),  "  Thou 
wilt  shew  me  the  path  of  life :  in  Thy  Presence  is  fulness  of 
joy ;  at  Thy  right  hand  there  are  pleasures  for  evermore  ;" 
because,  "  all  things  "  being  then  "  subdued  unto  "  Christ, 
God  will  "be  all  in  all."  (1  Cor.  xv.  28.) 

Yet  the  Exhibition  of  this  Divine  goodness  under  the 
Law  was  but  an  Adumbration  of  It;  nevertheless  it  was 


identical  with  it  (as  are  the  Beams  of  the  Sun  with  the  Sun), 
being  a  Shadowing  forth  of  Itself — a  Cloud  resplendent 
with  the  Divine  glory,  such,  e.g.,  as  that  in  which  God 
appeared  "  upon  the  mercy  seat "  of  the  Tabernacle,  (Lev. 
xvi.  1),  or,  later,  in  the  Temple,  when  "  the  cloud  filled  the 
House  of  the  Lord,  so  that  the  priests  could  not  stand  to 
minister  because  of  the  cloud:  for  the  glory  of  the  Lord 
had  filled  the  house  of  the  Lord."  (1  Kings  viii.  10,  11.) 
It  was  not  a  Shadow  projected  from  an  Object  by  a 
Luminary  shining  upon  it,  but  an  Emanation  of,  though  not 
a  separation  from,  the  Divine  Presence  Itself;  and,  there- 
fore, though  only  a  Shadowy  outline  of  it  yet  still,  the 
Presence  of  Him  Who  is  Divine. 

Under  the  Gospel,  however,  it  became  more  than  this :  it 
developed  into  the  Delineation  of  the  "good  things"  them- 
selves which  then  began  to  "shine"  (2  Cor.  iv.  4)  in  Christ, 
in  Whom  "  dwelleth  all  the  fulness  of  the  Godhead  bodily," 
(Col.  ii.  9) ;  for  He  was  «  the  Image  of  the  Invisible  God." 
(Col.  i.  15.)  His  Visible  Presence  among  men  answered 
Solomon's  question  in  a  way  little,  if  at  all,  contemplated — 
"Will  God  indeed  dwell  on  the  earth?"  For  though  he 
said,  "Behold,  the  Heaven  and  Heaven  of  Heavens  cannot 
contain  Thee,  how  much  less  this  House  that  I  have 
builded?"  (1  Kings  viii.  27);  human  eyes  nevertheless 
beheld  "  the  Word  "  of  God  "  made  Flesh,  and "  dwelling 
"among"  men,  "full  of  grace  and  truth."  (St.  John  i.  14.) 
And  so  it  came  to  pass,  that  though  "  No  man  hath  seen 
God  at  any  time :  the  Only  Begotten  Son,  which  is  in  the 
bosom  of  the  Father,  He  hath  declared  Him,"  (St.  John 
i.  18);  for  "God  was  manifest  in  the  Flesh."  (1  Tim.  iii.  16.) 
The  Invisible  and  Incomprehensible  God  vouchsafed  to 
assume  Form,  and  to  be  enshrined  in  Matter,  in  order  that 
His  creature,  Man,  might  behold  Him  and  approach  Him, 
and  thus  come  sensibly  within  the  sphere  of  His  operation, 
(even  as  some  object  brought  to  the  focus  of  a  Lens  in  which 
the  Sun's  beams  have  been  concentrated  into  his  Image) : 
though  His  Infinity  was  not  thereby  bounded,  nor  His 


350 

Invisibility  consequently  destroyed:  He  remained  the 
Eternal  Spirit  though  He  was  born  in  Time  of  Mary  His 
creature. 

But,  then,  although  there  was  the  most  complete  and 
perfect  identity  between  God  sitting  on  His  throne  and  God 
walking  among  men ;  it  was  nevertheless  true  that  the 
Presence  of  God  in  Christ  reconciling  the  world  unto  Him- 
self' (2  Cor.  v.  19)  was  only  a  local  Presence,  by  reason  of 
Christ's  Humanity.  Men  had,  indeed,  in  the  visible  taber- 
nacling of  Christ  in  the  midst  of  them,  all  the  sympathy  of 
"perfect  Man"  and  all  the  power  of  "perfect  God:"  but 
the  conditions  of  Manhood  Physically  limited  His  Incarnate 
Presence  to  one  place  at  one  time ;  though  the  conditions  of 
Godhead  enabled  the  God- Man  to  extend  Himself  after  a 
Spiritual  manner,  and  to  exert  both  His  Power  and 
Sympathy  where  He  was  Corporally  absent,  as,  e.g.,  when 
He  said,  "  Thy  Son  liveth."  (St.  John  iv.  50.) 

Yet  this  extension,  from  the  nature  of  the  case,  could  be 
but  partial  in  its  effects ;  for  it  necessarily  involved  appli- 
cations to  Christ  of  a  local  and  personal  character  which 
were  commonly  difficult,  and  as  regarded  the  great  mass  of 
mankind  must  be  practically,  if  not  absolutely  impossible. 
The  invitation  of  the  Sun  of  Righteousness  was  "  Come 
unto  Me  all  that  travail  and  are  heavy  laden,  and  I  will 
refresh  you,"  (St.  Matt.  xi.  28) :  but  the  answer  must  soon 
have  been,  "I  sought  Him,  but  I  could  not  find  Him," 
(Cant.  v.  6),  even  by  those  at  no  great  distance,  and  though 
He  went  hither  and  thither  never  so  much  in  the  plenitude 
of  His  zeal  to  enlighten  the  Nations. 

The  Ascension  of  the  Incarnate  Sun  of  Righteousness, 
though  it  was  to  a  local  habitation  in  "  Heaven,"  whence,  as 
"  Light  of  Light,"  He  "  came  down,"  removed  this  difficulty 
of  Universal  Presence,  arising  out  of  the  limitations  imposed 
by  His  Humanity.  One  especial  object  which  Christ  had  in 
determining  to  "go  away"  from  His  Disciples  was  to  "come 
again  "  to  them,  (St.  John  xiv.  28) :  this  return,  which  was 
to  be  effected  by  the  coming  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  "  the 


351 

Comforter,"  Who  was  to  "abide  with"  them  "for  ever," 
(xiv.  16),  had  moreover  a  further  purpose  than  their  own 
personal  consolation  ;  it  had  reference  to  "  the  world,"  which 
that  Divine  Spirit  was  to  "reprove  (or  convince)"  of  the 
very  same  things  which  Christ  had  already  been  convicting 
it  of,  viz.,  "Sin,"  (e.g.,  St.  John  xv.  22)  ;  "Righteousness," 
(e.g.,  St.  Matt.  xxi.  28— 32) ;  "Judgment,"  (e.g.,  St.  Matt, 
vii.  2).  And  directly  connected  with  this  purpose  was 
another,  and  that  other  a  re-production,  (so  to  say),  when 
Christ  should  have  gone  away,  of  that  same  **  image  of  the 
things"  still  "to  come,"  which  men  had  been  beholding  in 
Him,  and  which  needed  to  be  perpetuated,  unless  the  Gospel 
were  to  exhibit  less  than  the  Law :  "  Howbeit,"  said  our 

Lord,  "when  He  the  Spirit  of  Truth  is  come, He  will 

shew  you  THE  THINGS  TO  COME,"  (St.  John  xvi.  13),  words 
not  a  little  remarkable  when  compared  with  those  of  St.  Paul, 
(Heb.  x.  1),  already  spoken  of,  especially  if  we  bear  in  mind 
his  "visions  and  revelations  of  [i.e.,  given  him  by]  the 
Lord  "  when  he  was  " caught  up  to  the  third  heaven. . .  .into 
paradise,  and  heard  unspeakable  words  which  it  is  not  lawful 
[or  possible]  for  a  man  to  utter."  (2  Cor.  xii.  1 — 5.)  Nor 
are  we  left  wholly  to  guess  in  what  the  Holy  Ghost's  mani- 
festation of  these  "  things  to  come,"  primarily  at  least, 
consisted  ;  "For,"  said  our  Lord,  "He  shall  glorify  Me  :  for 
He  shall  take  of  Mine,  and  shall  shew  it  unto  you.  All 
things  that  the  Father  hath  are  Mine :  therefore,  said  I, 
that  He  shall  take  of  Mine,  and  shall  shew  it  unto  you." 
(St.  John  xvi.  14,  15.) 

Now,  whatever  may  be  the  details  of  this  Manifestation 
by  which  the  Spirit  was  to  "  glorify "  the  Incarnate  Son, 
there  can  be  no  doubt  that  they  all  converge  towards,  and 
centre  in,  that  perfect  love  of  God  which  caused  the  entire 
Oblation  of  the  Eternal  Son,  wrought  it  out  through  all  its 
stages,  and  completed  it  in  the  final  act  of  Christ's  sacrifice 
upon  the  cross.  That  the  Memorial  of  this  final  act  was  in 
fact  subsequently  made  among  Christians  is  plain  from 
St.  Paul's  remonstrance  with  the  "foolish  Galatians.., 


352 

before  whose  eyes,"  as  he  says,  "Jesus  Christ  hath  been 
evidently  set  forth  crucified  among  you."  (Gal.  iii.  1.)  How 
it  was,  and  was  to  be  perpetually  "  set  forth,"  may  be  no  less 
plainly  gathered  from  his  recital  to  the  Corinthians  of  that 
account  of  the  Institution  of  the  Eucharist  which  he  "  re- 
ceived of  the  Lord,"  (probably  in  that  Heavenly  Vision 
already  referred  to),  wherein  he  says,  "  For  as  often  as  ye  eat 
this  bread,  and  drink  this  cup,  shew  ye  the  Lord's  death  till 
He  come."  (1  Cor.  xi.  28.)  The  evidence  of  this  perpetual 
Commemoration,  hitherto,  is  matter  of  the  plainest  History, 
as  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  (e.g.,  ii.  42 ;  xx.  7),  and  the 
witness  of  Liturgies ;  it  exists,  moreover,  in  the  living 
experience  of  this  crowning  act  of  Worship  in  the  Universal 
Church.  The  realization  of  the  promise  to  the  first  Dis- 
ciples (and  in  them  to  all  others) — "  I  will  come  to  you," 
(St.  John  xiv.  18) — is  not  less  surely  to  be  found  in  the  Invo- 
cation of  the  Holy  Ghost,  whether  expressed  or  implied,  to 
make  present  in  that  "  Divine  Service"  the  Body  and  Blood 
of  Christ,  i.e.,  Christ  Himself.  The  effect  of  that  realiza- 
tion— "  I  will  see  you  again,  and  your  heart  shall  rejoice," 
(St.  John  xvi.  22) — finds  its  distinct  confirmation  in  that 
description  of  "  the  ministration  of  the  Spirit "  which 
St.  Paul  gives — "  We  all,  with  open  face  beholding  as  in  a 
glass  the  glory  of  the  Lord,  are  changed  into  the  same  image 
from  glory  to  glory,  even  as  of  the  Lord  the  Spirit."  (2  Cor. 
iii.  18.) 

Unless,  however,  this  Manifestation  of  Christ  in  His 
glory,  as  exhibited  by  the  present  Ministry  of  the  Spirit  in 
(what  I  may  properly  call)  the  Eucharistic  Mirror,  is  an 
equally  TRUE  shewing  forth  of  the  God-Man  with  that 
which  was  beheld  when  He  said,  "  I  am  come  a  Light  into 
the  world,"  (St.  John  xii.  46) ;  then,  His  Presence  now  must 
be  said  to  have  lost  in  Intensity,  while  it  has  gained  in 
Universality.  But  the  Sun  of  Righteousness  in  declaring 
the  purpose  of  His  shining  to  be  "  that  whosoever  belie veth 
IN  ME  should  not  abide  in  darkness,"  (Ibid.),  described  the 
precise  Object  on  which  the  Faith  of  Christians  was  ever  to 


353 

be  exercised,  in  order  to  effect  their  spiritual  Illumination : 
that  Object  was  none  other  than  the  Incarnate  Son  really 
present  among  them,  gradually  scattering  the  darkness  of 
sin  which  obscured  the  Image  of  God,  wherein  Man  was 
created,  and,  in  so  doing,  bringing  out  afresh  the  golden 
outlines  and  features  of  the  Divine  character  still  existing  in 
him.  It  is  upon  this  very  same  OBJECT,  only  in  its  glorified 
condition,  that  "  we  all "  are  believingly  to  gaze,  in  order 
that  by  the  "  knowledge  "  of  Christ  so  acquired  we  may  be 
transformed  into  "  the  image  of  Him  that  created  "  us,  (Col. 
iii.  10),  i.  e.,  into  the  likeness  of  Christ  Himself,  the  imago 
(slttuv}  of  the  Gospel,  Who  thus  carries  on  the  Sanctification 
of  the  Will  of  the  regenerate  ;  advancing  them  "  from  glory 
to  glory  ;"  "  the  inward  man  "  being  "  renewed  day  by  day," 
towards  the  perfection  of  its  re-creation,  "  while  we  look  not 
at  the  things  which  are  seen"  with  bodily  eyes  in  Sacraments, 
"but  at  the  things  which  are  not  seen,"  except  by  spiritual 
discernment :  "for  the  things  which  are  seen  are  temporal ; 
but  the  things  which  are  not  seen  are  eternal."  (2  Cor.  iv. 
16—18.) 

That  this  substantial  Eucharistic  Image  is  capable  of 
being  multiplied  as  indefinitely  throughout  the  Kingdom  of 
Grace  as  is  the  Solar  Image  throughout  the  Visible  World, 
might  fairly  be  gathered  from  the  Church's  practical  applica- 
tion, in  regard  to  the  Sacrament  of  the  Altar,  of  such  a 
promise  as  that  of  her  Lord,  "Where  two  or  three  are 
gathered  together  in  My  Name,  there  am  I  in  the  midst  of 
them."  (St.  Matt,  xviii.  20.)  JTO  JFthis  Presence  is  produced 
it  is  as  hopeless  as  needless  to  attempt  to  decide :  but  this  is 
no  sufficient  ground  for  refusing  to  admit  the  FACT  of  that 
Presence.  If,  by  whatever  law — known,  or  to  be  discovered 
— the  mirrored  image  of  the  Sun  produces  Natural  Effects 
like  to  what  we  suppose  would  be  the  local  action  of  that 
Luminary,  and  therefore  may  be  fitly  called  the  Real  Pre- 
sence of  the  Sun;  it  cannot  surely  be  a  condemnable  pro- 
position to  hold — that,  as  the  same  Spiritual  Effects  are  now 
caused  by  Eucharists  which  we  know  to  have  been  caused  by 

z  z 


354 

the  actual  Presence  of  Christ  upon  earth,  therefore  He  is 
now  as  Really  present  in  these  Sacramental  Mirrors  as  He  is 
in  His  local  Session  at  the  Right  Hand  of  His  Eternal 
Father.  Yet  this  is  no  more  a  Material,  i.e.,  a  Corporal 
Presence,  in  the  ordinary  acceptation  of  the  term,  than  is  the 
Image  of  the  Sun  in  a  Mirror  the  Corporal  Presence  of  that 
Luminary.  Archbishop  Cranmer  (in  1551,  when  his  doctrine 
of  the  Real  Presence  was  at  what  may  be  called  its  lowest 
ebb),  arguing  with  Bishop  Gardiner  against  the  Presence  of 
Christ's  Natural  Body  as  the  result  of  Consecration,  professed 
to  hold  with  St.  Cyprian,  "  that  the  Divinity  may  be  said  to 
be  poured,  or  put  sacramen tally  into  the  bread."  (Seep.  88.) 
The  question  is — Considering  that  in  the  "one  Christ"  are 
"  two  whole  and  perfect  Natures, ....  the  Godhead  and  the 
Manhood,..  ..never  to  be  divided,"  (Art.  ii.),  can  His 
Humanity  be  accounted  present  in  Eucharistic  Elements  in 
such  a  manner  as  not  necessarily  to  involve  its  Ubiquity? 
It  seems  to  me  that  a  statement  made  by  Cranmer  in  the 
previous  year,  and  certainly  not  abandoned  when  he  penned 
the  above  words,  may  be  claimed  as  supporting  an  affirmative 
answer:  he  complained  of  being  misrepresented  in  being 
accused  of  holding  "that  the  spiritual  receiving"  of  the  Eu- 
charist "  is  to  receive  Christ  ONLY  by  His  Divine  Nature,"  and 
emphatically  replied,  "  which  thing  I  never  said  nor  meant." 
(See  p.  23.)  The  context  of  the  sentence  can,  I  think,  be 
cited  to  shew  that  the  Archbishop  would  not  have  thought 
it  inconsistent  to  apply  to  the  Spiritual  PRESENCE  what  he 
here  says  of  the  Spiritual  RECEIVING  :  but  I  do  not  press  it 
as  his  argument,  since  the  passage  may  be  thought  hardly 
clear  enough  to  warrant  it.  What  has  now  been  advanced 
by  way  of  analogy,  drawn  from  the  Presence  of  the  Natural 
Sun,  may  possibly  point  to  a  mode  of  illustrating  and 
defending  the  Real  and  Substantial  Presence  "  of  the  Body 
and  Blood  of  Christ  under  the  Forms  of  Bread  and  Wine." 
It  may  be  that  in  time  to  come  He,  Whose  honour  is  most 
especially  concerned  in  a  right  apprehension  of  the  Doctrine 
to  be  believed  on  this  Mystery,  will  give  wisdom  to  some 


355 

man,  combining  the  requisite  Theological  and  Scientific 
knowledge,  and  enable  him  so  to  explain  this  long-contested, 
and  too  often  uncharitably  disputed  subject,  as  shall  tend  to 
Peace  and  Unity  among  His  Mystical  members,  and  so  to 
His  own  greater  glory  in  His  Church  and  in  the  World. 

These  remarks  are  partly  connected  with  that  portion  of  a 
long  Note  quoted  at  p.  340  from  Mr.  Goode's  Work  on  the 
Eucharist :  but  it  is  necessary  to  notice  also  the  other  state- 
ments contained  in  that  Note :  adverting  to  the  exclusion  of 
the  Declaration  on  Kneeling,  from  all  the  Editions  of  the 
Prayer  Book  between  1552  and  1662,  he  says : — 

"  The  reason  for  this  exclusion  may  have  been  that  it  was  not  felt 
desirable  to  be  rigidly  strict  at  that  time  against  all  notions  of  a 
bodily  presence.  The  great  point  was  to  exclude  the  carnal  notion 
of  an  oral  eating  of  the  Body  of  Christ  present  in  the  Elements,  and 
all  the  evil  consequences  resulting  from  such  a  doctrine ;  and  to 
establish  the  doctrine  that  '  the  mean  by  which  the  Body  of  Christ 
was  eaten  was  faith.'  The  notion  of  a  bodily  presence  in  the 
Supper  to  the  faith  of  the  receiver  was  one  of  a  more  harmless 
speculative  nature,  and  therefore  was  left  open  to  those  who  chose 
to  entertain  it.  But  the  revival  in  our  present  Prayer  Book  of  the 
Rubric  of  the  second  Prayer  Book  of  Edward  VI.  clearly  put  an 
end  even  to  this  doctrine." 

One  error  in  this  statement  seems  to  me  to  lie  in  Mr. 
Goode's  assuming  that "  the  notion  of  a  bodily  presence  IN  THE 
SUPPER  to  the  faith  of  the  receiver  ....  was  left  open  "  yet 
not  that  of  "  the  Body  of  Christ  present  IN  THE  ELEMENTS  :" 
but  here,  at  all  events,  he  stands  opposed  to  Bishop  Burnet 
and  Mr.  Harold  Browne  (see  above,  pp.  63,  189,  190-1 ;  and 
further,  Browne  on  the  Articles,  p.  708*)  the  latter  of  whom 

*  "  The  meaning  of  it  [the  Rubric]  clearly  is,  not  to  deny  a  spiritual,  but 
only  a  '  corporal  presence  of  Christ's  natural  *  Flesh  and  Blood,'  '  and  a  con- 
sequent adoration  of  tbe  elements,  as  though  they  did  not  remain  still  in  their 
very  natural  substances.'" 

*  "There  may  be  a  difficulty  in  reconciling  this  doctrine  [viz.,  of  Christ's  natural  having 
become  a  spiritual,  His  corruptible  an  incorruptible  body'],  which  is  the  plain  doctrine  of 
Scripture  and  the  Primitive  Christiana,  with  the  language  of  the  Rubric  at  the  end  of  the 
Communion  Service  quoted  above.    If  they  be  at  variance,  the  language  of  a  not  very  care- 
fully-worded Rubric,  adopted  not  without  some  hesitation  by  the  Reformers,  ought  not  to 
be  pressed:  but  it  is  plain,  that  the  writers  of  the  Rubric  did  not  mean  by  the  words 
'natural  body  '  to  convey  the  same  idea  as  St.  Paul  attaches  to  the  term  in  1  Cor.xv.    The 
doctrine,  which  they  meant  to  teach,  was  only,  that  we  must  not  consider  the  manhood  of 
Christ  changed  into  His  Godhead."    I  must  venture  so  far  to  differ  from  Mr.  Browne  as  to 
express  my  belief  that  what  has  been  advanced  in  these  pages  shews  that  the  "  Rubric  " 
was  "  carefully-worded." 


356 

considers  that  the  Declaration  and  its  corresponding  Clause 
in  the  28th  Article  of  1553  were  omitted  out  of  regard  to 
the  Lutherans ;  the  former  perhaps  referring  the  act  to  a  like 
consideration  for  the  Roman  party  as  well :  if,  however,  as 
certainly  was  the  case,  the  suppression  was  designed  to  con- 
ciliate one  or  both  of  these ;  then,  clearly,  the  belief  of  a 
Presence  in,  with,  or  under  the  Elements  was  not  forbidden, 
for  the  Lutherans  held  it ;  nor  can  we  suppose  it  was  meant 
to  be  denied  to  the  Romanists  if  they  were  content  to  allow 
the  protest  of  the  Article  against  Transubstantiation. 

Again,  Mr.  Goode  contends  that  "  the  great  point"  at  that 
time  was  to  determine  against  "  the  carnal  notion  of  an  oral 
eating  of  the  Body  of  Christ  present  in  the  Elements"  and  in 
favour  of  manducation  by  "faith :"  *  but  it  is  obvious  from 

*  At  p.  34  Mr.  Goode  says—"  The  Article  maintains  that  the  Body  and  Blood 
of  Christ  are  received  only  hy  faith,  and  therefore  not  by  the  mouth  of  the  com- 
municant, and  consequently  they  are  not  in  or  under  or  substituted  for  the  con- 
secrated elements  ;  and  the  Rubric  asserts,  that  there  is  no  substantial  presence 
of  the  natural  Body  of  Christ  at  all  in  the  Supper ;  and  therefore  the  words 
4  verily  and  indeed  taken  and  received '  do  not  mean  that  the  substantial  Body 
and  Blood  of  Christ,  whether  we  suppose  them  present  in  a  natural  or  a  super- 
natural way,  are  received  by  the  communicant." 

But,  unless  Mr.  Goode  holds  that  Eucharistic  reception  and  manducation  of 
the  Body  and  Blood  of  Christ  are  nothing  more  than  a  kind  of  mental  contempla- 
tion, there  seems  no  purpose  to  be  answered  by  his  argument,  even  if  it  were  a 
sound  one.  For  if,  as  surely  is  the  case,  there  needs  to  be  a  real  Union  and  Com- 
munion between  man  and  his  Incarnate  God,  there  must  be  some  means  of  effecting 
them  ;  Christ  has  provided  this  in  the  two  Sacraments  of  Baptism  and  the 
Lord's  Supper ;  though  we  know  they  are  not  absolutely  essential  to  this  end  : 
but  Mr.  Goode  is  here  speaking  of  the  ordained  means  of  Communion,  viz.,  Eu- 
charistic feeding :  now  seeing  that  He,  Who  could  have  fixed  upon  any  other 
mode  of  Communion,  chose  to  appoint  this,  it  may  well  be  thought  to  have  a 
designed  significance,  and  to  have  been  meant  to  teach  us — that  so  far  as  any 
organ  or  sense  at  all  is  the  instrument  by  which  faith  effects  its  purposes,  the 
mouth  is  that  organ  in  the  case  of  Sacramental  Communion  of  the  Body  and 
Blood  of  Christ.  The  28th  Article  does  not  say,  as  Mr.  Goode  represents,  that 
"the  Body  and  Blood  of  Christ  are  received  only  by  faith  ;"  its  words  are  "  the 
mean  whereby  the  Body  of  Christ  is  received  and  eaten  in  the  Supper  is  Faith." 
But  the  mention  of  an  agent  does  not  necessarily  exclude  an  instrument;  and  so 
the  mouth  of  a  Christian  may  be  the  VISIBLE  instrument  by  which  an  INVISIBLE 
faith  effects  Communion  between  his  soul  and  Christ :  just  as,  when  in  His  risen 
Humanity  He  appeared  to  the  disciples,  Thomas  in  toucJnng  Him  touched  GOD 
(See  p.  50) ;  though  it  is  as  true  to  say  that  no  man  ever  touched  God,  as  to  say 
that  "  No  man  hath  seen  God  at  any  time  "  (St.  John  i.  18).  I  have  already  (at 
pp.  143  —  146)  ventured  a  suggestion  as  to  the  compatibility  of  oral  manducation 
with  a  Heal,  yet  not  carnal,  Presence :  here,  therefore,  it  will  be  enough  humbly 
to  express  my  conviction  that  such  a  theory  may  suffice  to  correct  that,  perhaps  not 
needless,  dread  of  a  gross  and  material  conception  of  Eucharistic  feeding  which 
apparently  runs  through  Mr.  Goode' s  observations  and  arguments  on  this  point. 


357 

the  Article  of  1563  and  1571  that  an  equal  prominence  was 
given  to  the  condemnation  of  Transubstantiation  and,  what 
is  more,  the  very  Clause  which  declares  that  "faith"  is  "  the 
mean  whereby  the  Body  of  Christ  is  received  and  eaten," 
also  declares  that  It  "is  given. . . .  only  after  an  heavenly  and 
spiritual  manner  " — terms  which  Bishop  Guest  tells  us  as  em- 
phatically in  his  Second  Letter  (p.  199),  as  in  the  First,  were 
designed  "  to  take  away  all  grosse  and  sensible  presence  " — 
a  statement  to  which,  it  has  been  proved  I  think,  we  are 
bound  to  give  the  fullest  credit. 

But,  further,  Mr,  Goode  says  that  the  restoration  of  the 
Declaration  in  1662  "  clearly  puts  an  end  even  to  this  doc- 

A  reference  to  some  extracts  already  given  will  shew  that  such  a  dread  is  not 
new,  and  will  at  the  same  time  support,  I  think,  what  has  heen  advanced  in  this 
note.  Thus  (See  p.  12)  though  P.  Martyr  held  "  that  we  are  incorporated  into  " 
Christ  "  by  communication  ....  of  the  matter  of  the  Sacrament,  namely,  the 
Body  and  Blood  of  Christ ;  but  he  meant  it  in  mind  and  faith ;"  such  language 
does  not  necessarily  exclude  oral  "  communication ;"  the  ground,  for  this  expres- 
sion of  the  mode,  being  his  anxiety  "  that  they  mixed  not  the  Body  and  Blood 
of  Christ  carnally  with  the  bread  and  wine  by  any  corporeal  Presence  "  —  a  then 
not  unpopular  corruption  which  it  was  deemed  needful  to  guard  against. 

Again :  Dr.  Redman  (see  p.  28)  when  distinctly  asked  "  his  opinion,  whether 
we  received  the  very  body  of  Christ  with  our  mouths  and  into  our  bodies,  or 
no?"  did  not  deny  such  reception,  but  said  "It  is  a  hard  question,"  adding 
"  but  surely  we  receive  Christ  in  our  souls  by  faith,"  and  expressing  his  fear 
lest  "When  you  do  speak  of  it  otherways,  it  soundeth  grossly,  and  savoureth  of 
the  Capernaites." 

Once  more :  Cranmer  though,  in  answer  to  "Weston  (see  p.  49),  he  denied  that 
we  receive  "  the  Body  by  the  mouth  ;"  taught  in  his  Catechism  (.See  p.  155)  that 
a  rightly  prepared  communicant  "  doth  .  .  .  with  his  bodyly  mouthe  receaue  the 
bodye  and  bloude  of  Christ ;"  the  seeming  contradiction  being  reconciled  by  the 
language  of  his  -"Defence"  (See  p.  159),  and  especially  by  his  comment  upon 
Gardiner's  use  of  the  word  "verily"  (See  p.  181),  which  he  says  "is  so  Caper- 
naical,  so  gross,  and  so  dull  in  the  perceiving  of  this  mystery,  that  you  think  a  man 
cannot  receive  the  body  of  Christ  verily,  unless  he  take  Him  corporally  in  hia 
corporal  mouth,  flesh,  blood,  and  bones,  as  he  was  born  of  the  Virgin  Mary." 
Looking  at  these  statements  and  considering  the  prevalence  at  that  time  of  carnal 
notions  on  the  Presence,  it  is  not  difficult,  I  think,  to  understand  the  admission 
"that  Christ  entereth  into  us  both  by  our  ears  and  by  our  eyes"  (See  p.  49)  — 
language  which  was  hardly  capable  of  a  carnal  construction— yet  to  comprehend 
the  evident  reluctance  to  endorse  oral  reception  :  though  no  one  surely  will  deny 
that  Christ  can  enter  the  soul  by  the  mouth  as  well  as  by  any  other  organ. 

I  will  only  further  remark  upon  the  above  extract  from  Mr.  Goode— that  it  is 
of  the  utmost  importance  in  this  controversy  (especially  if  it  is  to  become 
profitable  by  promoting  any  agreement)  to  be  accurate  in  the  use  of  language  : 
Mr.  Goode  says  "  the  Kubric  asserts,  that  there  is  no  substantial  presence  of  the 
natural  Body  of  Christ  at  all  in  the  Supper:"  but  what  is  denied  is  "any 
Corporal  Presence  of  Christ's  natural  flesh  and  blood :"  unless  Mr.  Goode  can 
prove  that  a  substantial  Presence  must  be  a  Corporal  Presence  this  interchange 
of  terms  is  not  permissible. 


358 

trine "  of  "  a  bodily  presence  in  the  Supper  to  the  faith  of 
the  receiver,"  which  he  thinks  may  have  been  allowed  to  be 
held  during  the  exclusion  of  the  Declaration.*  Now  it  is 
immaterial  to  consider  whether  the  statement  of  Bullinger 
and  Gualter  in  their  Letter  of  Feb.  6,  1566-7  (see  p.  191) 
strictly  represents  the  general  practice  at  that  time,  when 
they  say  that  that  "same  explanation"  was  then  "most 
diligently  declared,  published  and  impressed  upon  the  peo- 
ple : "  though,  of  course,  if,  as  there  seems  no  reason  to 
doubt,  such  was  the  case,  its  absence  from  the  Prayer  Book 
was  of  no  practical  importance.  It  is  a  complete  answer,  I 
think,  to  Mr.  Goode's  assertion  to  refer  to  the  reply  of  the 
Bishops  in  1661  (see  p.  70)  when  the  restoration  of  the 
Declaration  was  demanded :  they  said  that  "  the  sense  of  it 
is  declared  sufficiently  in  the  28th  Article  of  the  Church  of 
England ;"  for  if,  as  the  Bishops  in  effect  say,  the  Declara- 
and  the  Article  mean  the  same  thing ;  then,  if  the  Article 
without  the  Declaration  did  not  condemn  the  Presence  of 
which  Mr.  Goode  speaks,  it  follows  that  the  Article  with  the 
Declaration  does  not  now  condemn  it.  Nay,  more,  by  the 
same  reasoning,  if  the  Article  minus  the  Declaration  did  not 
"  take  awaye  ye  presence  of  Christens  Bodye  in  ye  Sacra- 
ment," as  Bishop  Guest  asserted  (See  p.  193)  how  can  the 
Article  plus  the  Declaration  have  a  precisely  opposite  effect  ? 
There  is  but  one  answer,  let  him  accept  it  who  will, — that 
two  statements  substantially  alike  when  separate,  produce 
one  essentially  different  when  they  are  united. 

In  support  of  these  three  statements  upon  which  I  have 
been  commenting,  Mr.  Goode  refers  to  "the  able  Roman 

*  Yet  Mr.  Goode  had  said  just  before  (p.  29)  "There  may  be  a  real  presence 
of  Christ,  even  in  the  sense  attributed  to  the  words  by  the  Archdeacon  [who, 
Mr.  G.  says,  "has  confounded  two  things  entirely  distinct,  tbe  real  presence  of 
Christ  in  the  Sacrament  or  rite  to  the  worthy  receiver,  and  His  real  presence  in 
the  consecrated  elements ;  as  also  a  real  spiritual  with  a  real  bodily  presence],  in 
the  Supper,  though  it  be  not  in  the  elements.  And,  in  the  true  sense  of  the 
words,  our  Church  no  doubt  holds  a  real  spiritual  presence  of  Christ  in  the 
sacrament  or  rite  to  every  faithful  communicant,  but  not  in  the  sacramental 
bread  and  wine." 

So  again  (p.  12)  "The  Body  might  be  present  even  materially,  and  yet  not  in 
the  Bread." 


359 

Catholic  writer,  Abraham  Woodhead,"*  quoting  passages 
from  his  "  Two  Discourses  concerning  the  Adoration  of  our 
Blessed  Saviour  in  the  Holy  Eucharist.  Oxf.  1687,  4to.,  pp. 
18,  24:"  where  the  writer  argues  that  the  "reason"  of  the 
Declaration — viz.,  that  the  same  body  cannot  be  at  the  same 
time  in  different  places — "  seems  necessarily  to  exclude  .... 
the  real  and  essential  presence,  as  well  as  corporal  and 
natural',"  and  contends  that  "the  same  objections,  ab- 
surdities, etc.,"  are  thus  presented  to  those  who  "say  that 
Christ's  Body  is  really  or  essentially  present  in  the  Eucharist, 
....  not  to  the  Elements,  but  to  the  receiver ;  and  that  not 
to  his  body,  but  to  his  soul,"  as  they  "  afflict  others"  with, 
"  for  making  it  present  with  the  signs."  Upon  Woodhead's 
reasoning,  which  he  quotes  at  length,  Mr.  Goode  says  (Note 
p.  31):- 

"  These  remarks  are  perfectly  true.  The  denial  that  our  Saviour's 
body  can  be  in  two  places  at  the  same  time,  is  a  denial  that  there 
can  be  any  real  bodily  presence  of  our  Saviour  at  all  in  the  Eucha- 
rist, either  in  the  Elements,  or  apart  from  them The  resto- 
ration, therefore,  of  this  Rubric  to  our  Prayer  Book  at  the  last 
revision  precludes  those  who  have  subscribed  it  from  holding  any 
bodily  presence  at  all  in  the  Eucharist,  even  apart  from  the  conse- 
crated elements.  While  it  was  excluded,  such  a  view  might  no 
doubt  be  held  by  our  Divines,  and  some  of  them,  perhaps,  who 
lived  at  that  time  did  maintain  it.  But  even  these  give  no  counte- 
nance to  the  doctrine  opposed  in  this  work,  because  that  doctrine  is, 
that  thejpresence  is  by  priestly  consecration  IN  THE  ELEMENTS,  and  to 
be  adored  as  in  the  elements  ;  a  notion  which  was  decidedly  opposed, 
as  I  shall  show  hereafter,  by  those  who  held  the  highest  doctrine  of 
the  Real  Presence  ever  maintained  in  our  Reformed  Church.  And 
this  is  distinctly  admitted  by  the  Roman  Catholic  author  just  cited, 
even  when  endeavouring  to  show  how  near  these  authors  come  to 
the  Roman  Catholic  doctrine  of  the  Real  Presence.  He  is  obliged 
to  admit  that  this  notion  of  the  Real  Bodily  Presence  was  that  it 
was  a  Presence  to  the  receiver,  but  not  to  the  elements.  (See  work 
already  cited  in  various  places  ;  and  his  Compendious  Disc,  on 
Euch.,  Oxford,  1688,  p.  30,  et  seq.,  and  App.  2,  p.  212.)" 

He  was  born  in  1608;  educated  at  University  College,  Oxford;  fellow  in 
; ;  soon  after  took  Holy  Orders ;  was  P 
e  with  pupils,  where  he  is  thousjht  to  1 
ived  of  his  Fellowship  in  1648,  by  the 
of  "absence  ;  died  at  Hoxton,  May  4,  1678. 


360 

Now  when  Mr.  Goode  assigns  his  reasons  for  saying, 
"  These  remarks  are  perfectly  true,"  he  makes  a  statement 
which  is  certainly  not  the  counterpart  of  Woodhead's  argu  - 
ment;  that  writer  considers  "  the  reason"  of  the  Declaration 
to  be  fatal  to  the  "  real  and  essential"  no  less  than  to  the 
"  corporal  and  natural "  Presence  ;  and  that,  too,  whether  the 
Presence  is  held  to  be  to  the  Receiver,  or  in  the  Elements : 
Mr.  Goode  seems  to  ignore  the  distinction  between  these 
two  sorts  of  Presence,  viz.,  the  real  and  the  corporal,  by 
saying  what,  in  fact,  the  Declaration  more  accurately  ex- 
presses— viz.,  that  there  is  not  "  any  real  bodily  Presence  of 
our  Saviour  at  all  in  the  Eucharist ;"  consistently  enough, 
therefore,  he  contends  that  the  restored  Declaration  "  pre- 
cludes   from  holding  any  bodily  Presence."  But  he  is 

here  fighting  with  a  phantom ;  for  the  writers  whom  he  is 
opposing  have  nowhere  set  up  the  notion  of  such  a  Presence  ; 
on  the  contrary,  they  distinctly  put  forward  the  teaching  of 
the  Declaration :  so  that,  unless  Mr.  Goode  means  by  "  any 
bodily  Presence  "  something  really  different  from  "  any  cor- 
poral Presence  of  Christ's  natural  Flesh  and  Blood,"  his  ar- 
gument is  useless,  and  may  only  mislead. 

It  is  clear,  however,  from  his  other  language,  that  Mr. 
Goode's  objection  travels  beyond  some  real  or  supposed  doc- 
trine of  "  any  bodily  Presence,"  and  runs  up  into,  what  he 
calls,  the  doctrine  ' '  that  the  presence  is  by  priestly  conse- 
cration IN  THE  ELEMENTS,  and  to  be  adored  as  in  the  elements :" 
by  the  expression  "  the  Presence  "  I  presume  Mr.  Goode 
does  not  mean  that  "bodily  Presence  "  of  which  he  had  just 
been  speaking,  but  such  other  Presence  as  the  Church  of 
England  believes:  here,  however,  I  am  not  concerned  to 
discuss  the  abstract  questions  of  Consecration,  or  of  the 
nature  and  mode  of  the  Presence  ;  though,  indeed,  they  have 
been  noticed  already  in  different  parts  of  these  pages,  so  far 
as  was  necessary  for  the  elucidation  of  points  in  the  his- 
torical survey  which  they  take ;  it  is  only  needful,  there- 
fore, to  enquire — whether  the  terms  of  the  Declaration  ex- 
clude "the  doctrine"  here  stated  by  Mr.  Goode  to  "be 


361 

decidedly  opposed, by  those  who  held  the  highest  doc- 
trine of  the  Real  Presence  ever  maintained  in  our  Reformed 
Church  ?  "  And  I  think  it  may  be  somewhat  confidently 
answered  that,  having  regard  to  the  evidence  which  I  have 
already  offered,  the  statements  of  those  who  were  responsible 
for  the  introduction  and  re-introduction  of  the  Declaration, 
prove  that  no  such  exclusion  was  contemplated.*  In  saying 
this  I  do  not  mean  to  imply  that  their  contemporaries,  of 
whom  Mr.  Goode  speaks,  are  to  be  wholly  disregarded  ;  but 
that  any  statements  of  theirs  which  are,  or  seem  to  be,  op- 
posed to  those  authorities  I  have  cited,  must  not  be  allowed 
to  outweigh  them.  But  as  Mr.  Goode  invokes  Woodhead's 
admissions  in  support  of  his  own  opinion  as  to  the  teaching 
of  the  writers  he  mentions,  it  is  desirable  to  consider  what 
that  author  states  in  proof  of  their  holding  that  "  the  Real 
bodily  Presence  was,"  as  Mr.  Goode  says,  "  a  Presence  to  the 
receiver,  but  not  to  the  elements." 

In  referring  to  the  first  of  his  two  Publications  f  which  Mr. 
Goode  cites  (See  p.  359),  it  is  important  to  notice  at  the  out- 
set that  Woodhead  seems  to  have  been  ignorant  or  unmindful 
of  one  important  circumstance  as  to  the  Declaration ;  and 
this  may  therefore  have  coloured  his  views  of  its  meaning, 
and  of  the  language  of  its  authors  and  maintainers  :  speaking 
of  the  change  in  the  form  of  delivering  the  Sacrament,  he 
says  (p.  2)  that  it  was  made  by  "the  Composers  of  the 

*  Even  Woodhead  (p.  4),  to  whom  Mr.  Goode  here  refers,  says  that  the 
authors  of  the  present  Declaration  "  either  leave  this  undetermined,  whether  there 
be  not  another  Presence  of  Christ's  Flesh  and  Blood  as  real  and  true  as  is  the 
Corporeal,  to  which  an  adoration  is  at  this  time  due :  or  else  do  determine,  as 
seems  concludable  from  their  present  Proposition  [viz.,  that  the  natural  Body  of 
Christ  is  not  there]  that  there  is  not  any  such  real  Presence  of  the  Body  at  all, 
and  so  no  adoration  due  in  any  such  respect." 

f  The  following  extract  seems  to  explain  a  Typographical  peculiarity  in  these 
two  Publications,  viz.,  the  frequent  insertion  of  passages  in  square  brackets,  ap- 
parently by  some  one  else  than  Woodhead  himself;  and  also  removes  the  doubt, 
which  has  been  sometimes  entertained,  whether  the  author  was  Abraham  Wood- 
head  or  Obadiah  Walker:—"  In  October  following  [i.e.,  1686]  Mr.  Walker  ob- 
tained a  License  from  his  Majesty  [James  II.]  to  print  certain  books  lying  by  him, 
because  he  knew  they  would  not  pass  through  the  Licenser' stands,  and  in  Jan. 
following  that,  he  published,  '  Two  Discourses  concerning  the  Adoration  of  our 
Blessed  Saviour  in  the  Eucharist,'  etc.,  penned  by  his  quondam  tutor,  Abraham 
Woodhead." — Wood,  Ath.  Oxon,  vol.  iv.,  p.  440,  London,  I8i0. 

A    A    A 


362 

Second  [Prayer  Book  of  Edward  Vlth.] suitable  to 

their  Declaration,  which  denies  any  real  or  essential  presence 
of  this  Body  [of  Christ]  in  the  Eucharist:"  Whereas  the 
fact  is  that  the  Declaration  was  subsequent  to  the  completion, 
and  even  printing  of  many  copies,  of  the  Book  :  the  proof 
of  this  has  already  been  given,  so  that  there  is  no  need  to 
relate  it  here :  I  need  scarcely  add  that  a  perusal  of  Wood- 
head's  book  plainly  shews  him  to  have  been  uninformed  of 
those  other  important  matters  in  the  history  of  the  Decla- 
ration which  are  now  for  the  first  time,  I  believe,  published. 
It  is  well  to  notice,  too,  that  Woodhead  does  not  here  accu- 
rately represent  the  teaching  of  the  Original  Declaration  ;  it 
condemned  the  notion  of  "any  reall  and  essenciall  presence 
....  of  Chryste's  natural  Eleshe  and  Bloude  :"  this  does  not 
necessarily  mean  the  same  thing  as  "  real  or  essential  Pre- 
sence of  [Christ's]  Body,"  though  Woodhead  may  have  de- 
signed to  interchange  the  language. 

I  pass  over  some  other  difficulties  which  Woodhead  (p.  2) 
raises  as  to  the  omission  of  the  Invocation  and  the  Manual 
Acts,  in  the  Second  Book  of  Edward  Vlth.  ;  merely  drawing 
attention  to  what  has  been  already  stated  (See  pp.  34  and  35) 
in  proof  that  those  who  were  responsible  for  the  Revision  of 
1552  did  not  intend  it  to  teach  a  different  Eucharistic  Doc- 
trine from  that  which  the  First  Book  set  forth  ;  and  of  which 
Bishop  Gardiner  could  say  (See  p.  26)  that  "  touching  the 
truth  of  the  very  Presence  of  Christ's  most  precious  Body 
and  Blood  in  the  Sacrament,  there  was  as  much  spoken  in 
that  book  as  might  be  desired." 

Now  Woodhead  discusses  Three   Subjects : — 

'*  1.  That  here  [i.e.,  in  the  Declaration]  the  present  Clergy  do 
profess  expressly,  that  the  natural  Body  and  Blood  of  our  Saviour 
Christ  are  not  in  the  Blessed  Sacrament." — p.  4. 

With  reference  to  this  he  says  : — 

"...  .the  learned  Protestant  writers  seem  to  me,  at  least  in  their 
most  usual  expressions,  to  have  heretofore  delivered  the  contrary ; 
viz.,  '  That  the  very  substance  of  Christ's  Body,  that  His  natural 
Body,  that  that  very  Body  that  was  born  of  the  Blessed  Virgin,  and 
crucified  on  the  cross,  etc,,  is  present,  as  in  heaven,  so  here  in  this 


363 

Holy  Sacrament,  either  to  the  worthy  Receiver ;    or  to  the   Sym- 
bols."—p.  5. 

But  this  is  certainly  not  the  same  thing  as  saying  (in  Mr. 
Goode's  words) — that  they  only  held  "a  Presence  to  the 
Receiver,  but  not  to  the  Elements." 

In  proof,  Woodhead  cites  Calvin  on  1  Cor.  xi.  24;  Instit. 
4,  1.  17,  c.  11  § ;  ib.  §§.  16  and  19:  "  Beza,  and  others  of 
the  same  sect,  related  by  Hospinian,  hist.  Sacram.  parte 
altera,  p.  251  ":  Hooker,  Eccl.  Pol,  5,  1.  67,  §  :  Bp.  An- 
drews, Resp.  ad.  Apol.  Bell.,  1  c.,  p.  11  ;  ib.,  8  c.,  p.  194  : 
"  Is.  Causabon's  Letter  written  by  the  King's  command  to 
Card.  Perron,"  §.  11,  n.  2  :  Bp.  Hall,  De  pace  Ecclesiastica, 
§.  12 :  Bp.  Montague,  Appeal,  pp.  289  and  779  :  Abp.  Laud, 
Conf.  with  Fisher,  §.  35,  n.  3  and  6 :  "  Bp.  Taylor,  one  of  the 
last  who  hath  written  a  just  Treatise  on  this  subject,  1.  §., 
11  n.,  p.  18,*  and  §.  12  :  Bp.  Forbes,  de  Eucharistia,  2.  1.,  2 
c.,  9  §.,  and  3.  1.,  1  c.,  10  §. :  the  Archbishop  of  Spalato,  de 

*  Though  I  am  unwilling  to  multiply  quotations,  it  seems  desirable  here  to 
give  the  passage  cited  from  Bp.  Taylor: — "  It  is  enquired  whether,  when  we 
say  we  believe  Christ's  body  to  be  really  in  the  Sacrament,  we  mean  that  body, 
that  flesh,  that  was  born  of  the  Virgin  Mary,  that  was  crucified,  dead  and 
buried  ?  I  answer  I  know  of  none  else  that  He  had,  or  hath  ;  there  isbut  one  body 
of  Christ  natural  and  glorified :  but  he*  that  saith  that  body  is  glorified,  which 
was  crucified,  says  it  is  the  same  body,  but  not  after  the  same  manner  ;  and  so 
it  is  in  the  Sacrament,  we  eat  and  drink  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ  that  was 
broken  and  poured  forth  ;  for  there  is  no  other  body,  no  other  blood  of  Christ : 
but  though  it  is  the  same  we  eat  and  drink,  yet  it  is  in  another  manner.  And 
therefore  when  any  of  the  Protestant  Divines,  or  any  of  the  Fathers  deny,  that 
body  which  was  born  of  the  Virgin  Mary,  that  was  crucified,  to  be  eaten  in  the 
Sacrament,  as  Bertram,  as  St.  Hierom,  as  Clemens  Alexandrinus  expressly 
affirm  ;  the  meaning  is  easy,  they  intend  that  it  is  not  eaten  in  a  natural  sense : 
and  then  calling  [it]  Corpus  spirituale,  the  word  spirituals  is  not  a  substantial 
predication,  but  is  an  affirmation  of  the  manner ;  tho  in  disputation  it  be 
made  the  Predicate  of  a  Proposition,  and  the  opposite  member  of  a  Distinction. 
That  Body  which  was  crucified  is  not  the  Body  that  is  eaten  in  the  Sacrament, 
if  the  intention  of  the  Proposition  be  to  speak  of  the  eating  it  in  the  same  man- 
ner of  being :  but  that  Body  which  was  crucified,  the  same  Body  do  we  eat,  if 
the  intention  be  to  speak  of  the  same  thing  in  several  manners  of  being  and 
operating  ;  and  this  I  noted,  that  we  may  not  be  prejudiced  by  words,  when  the 
notion  is  certain  and  easy.  And  thus  far  is  the  sense  of  our  doctrine  in  this 
Article."— p.  9. 

"Again,  §.  12,  p.  288:— 'They  that  do  not  confess  the  Eucharist  to  be  the 
flesh  of  our  Saviour,  which  flesh  suffered  for  us,  let  them  be  Anathema.  But 
quo  modo  is  the  question,'  etc."—  Conf.,  JBp.  Hcber's  JEd.,  1839,  vol.  x.,  p.  73. 

•  The  reference  here  is  to  "  Bp.  Ridley's  Answer  to  Curtop's  first  argument  in  his  Disputa- 
tion at  Oxford,  Fox.  Martyrol,  p.  1451.  vet.  Edit."— See  Bp.  Hebei's  Edit.,  1839,  vol.  ix.(  p. 
431.  (Seep.  59.) 


364 

Rep.  Eccl..,7.}.,  11  c.,  7§.:  and  Mr.  Thorndyke,  Epilogue  to 
the  Tragedy ,3. 1.,  3  c. ;  Ib.,  2.  c. ;  3.  1.  23  c. ;  3.  L,  5.  c. ;  and 
3.  L,  30  c. 

Of  these  twelve  writers  ten  speak  as  distinctly  as  possible, 
in  the  passages  quoted,*  of  the  Real  Presence  being  in  or 
under  the  Elements,  or  in  the  Sacrament:  Hooker,  the 
eleventh  referred  to,  in  the  place  cited,  represents  the  con- 
troversy as  being  "  whether,  when  the  Sacrament  is  admin- 
istered, Christ  be  whole  within  man  only,  or  else  His  Body 
and  Blood  be  also  externally  seated  in  the  very  consecrated 
Elements  themselves:"  while  Bishop  Hall,  the  twelfth 
writer  quoted,  observes  that  the  difference  between  the 
Calvinists  and  Lutherans  is  not  as  to  the  Thing  present,  but 
as  to  the  manner  of  Its  Presence. 

While,  however,  this  disposes,  I  think,  of  Mr.  Goode's 
conclusions  from  Woodhead's  reference  to  these  writers  so 
far ;  it  is  of  equal  importance  to  notice  that  they  none  of 
them  maintain  a  Corporal  Presence  of  Christ's  Natural 
Body ;  and  therefore  I  cannot  see  that  Woodhead  has  proved 
his  allegation — that  they  have  "  delivered  the  contrary  "  of 
the  protest  in  the  Declaration  against  "  any  Corporal  Pre- 
sence of  Christ's  Natural  Flesh  and  Blood"  in  the  Eucha- 
rist :  for  even  granting  to  the  full,  for  argument's  sake,  that 
they  all  allowed  (as  he  says)  "  the  very  substance  of  Christ's 
Body"  to  be  "present,"  it  cannot  be  maintained,  I  think, 
that  they  accounted  It  present  "  as  in  heaven,  so  here  in  this 
Holy  Sacrament ;"  if  by  so  is  meant  in  such  manner  :  indeed, 
it  appears  to  me,  that  Woodhead  really  reconciles  his  own 
alleged  difference  between  the  Writers  and  the  Declaration, 
when  he  says,  in  commenting  upon  Bishop  Taylor's  language, 
"  now  by  exclusion  of  the  natural  manner  is  not  meant 
(surely)  the  exclusion  of  nature,  or  of  the  thing  itself,  (for, 
then,  to  say  a  thing  is  there,  after  a  natural  manner,  were  as 
much  as  to  say,  the  thing  is  not  there :)  but  the  exclusion  of 

*  I  am  not  here  concerned  to  enquire  whether  the  passages  are  accurately 
quoted  (though  the  accuracy  of  the  citation  from  Bp.  Taylor  favours  the  sup- 
position of  their  fidelity)  because,  like  Mr.  Goode,  I  have  only  to  deal  with  them 
as  quoted. 


365 

those  properties  which  usually  accompany  nature,  or  the 
thing."— p.  10. 

The  next  subject  of  which  Woodhead  treats  is  : — 

"2.  That  they  [i.e.,  the  present  Clergy]  urge  for  this  Non-pre- 
sence there  [viz.,  in  the  Eucharist]  this  reason  or  ground  out  of 
Natural  Philosophy,  That  it  is  against  the  truth  of  a  natural  body,  to 
be  in  more  places  than  one  at  one  time  ;  here  seeming  to  found  their 
Faith  in  this  matter  on  the  truth  of  this  position  in  Nature." — p.  4. 

Upon  this  point  he  says  : — 

"  Here  also,  first,  I  find  Protestants,  and  especially  our  English 
Divines  generally,  to  confess  the  Presence  of  our  Saviour  in  the 
Eucharist  to  be  an  ineffable  mystery,  (which  I  conceive  is  said  to  be 
so  in  respect  of  something  in  it  opposite  and  contradictory  to,  and 
therefore  incomprehensible  and  ineffable  by,  human  reason.)  " — p. 
13. 

The  authorities  he  quotes  are,  Calvin,  Inst.,  4.  1.,  17  c., 
21  §. ;  §.32;  §.25;  §.7:  King  James'  Answer  to  Card. 
Perron,  §.  20,  n.  2  :  and  Bishop  Taylor,  Real  Presence,  §.11, 
n.  28  ;  Liberty  of  Prophecy,  20,  §.  16 — n.  He  then  pro- 
ceeds to  comment  upon  their  language,  and  urges  these  ob- 
jections : — 

1.  That  by  ineffable  mystery  they  appear  to  admit  that  "some  seeming 
contradiction  to  reason  may  yet  be  verified  in  this  Sacrament." — p. 
14. 

But  their  words  appear  to  me,  at  most,  only  to  speak  of 
the  mode  of  Presence  being  not  fully  comprehensible  to 
reason, 

2.  That  "  these  Writers  must  hold  this  particular  seeming  con- 
tradiction, or  some  other  equivalent  to  it,  to  be  true  ;  so  long  as  they 

affirm  a  real  and  substantial  Presence contra- distinct  to 

a  Presence  of  Christ's  Body  in  its  virtue,  efficacy,  benefits,  spirit, 
etc.,  which  is  the  Zuinglian's  real  Presence  :  for  " if  the  substance, 
the  essence,  the  reality,"  of  Christ's  Body,  "  naturally  or  locally  in 

Heaven,"  be  "  present  to  the  symbols,  or  to  the  receiver, we 

must  affirm  that  this  essence  or  substance  of  the  same  Body  at  least 
is  at  the  same  time  in  diverse  places.9' — p.  14, 

He  contends,  further,  that  there  is  no  escaping  this  con- 
clusion 

"  unless  we  defend  one  of  these  two  things  ;  either  (1)  That  this 
Body  is  both  here  and  there  by  an  incomprehensible  continuation,  as  it 


366 

were,  thereof,  (-which  sounds  somewhat  like  the  ubiquity  of  some 
Lutherans)  ----  Or  (2)  Unless  we  will  explain  ourselves,  that,  by  the 
essential,  real,  substantial  presence  of  Christ's  Body  in  the  Eucharist, 
we  mean  only  the  presence  of  the  true  and  real  effect,  blessing,  virtues 
of  this  Body,  (as  Dr.  Taylor  sometimes  seems  to  do)  but  this  is,  after 
professing  with  the  highest  in  our  words,  a  relapsing  into  Zuingli- 
anism  in  our  sense."  —  pp.  15  and  16. 

After  quoting  passages*  from  Bp.  Taylor,  in  proof  of  his 
statement,  he  goes  on  to  point  out, 

"  that  the  Schoolmen  do  not  all  agree  on  one  and  the  same"  mode 
of  Presence;  some,  with  S.  Thomas,  denying  "the  Body  of  Christ 
to  be  either  circumscriptive,  or  definitive  in  this  Sacrament,"  and 
affirming  "  that  Idem  Corpus  non  potest,  per  miraculam,  or  potentiam 
divinam,  esse  in  pluribus  locis  simul,  i.e.  localiter,  or,  in  the  fore- 
mentioned  wayes,  circurascriptively  or  definitively."  —  (p.  17.) 

But  he  explains  :  — 

"  I.  That  they  take  circumscriptive,  and  definitive,  in  such  a  sense, 
as  that  these  two  do  exclude,  not  only  such  a  bodie's  being  ubique, 
every  where,  but  absolutely  its  being  alibi,  any  where  else  ;  and  that 
these  modes  of  Presence  would  infer,  that  the  same  individual  is 
divided  from  itself,  (contrary  to  the  nature  of  individtmm,  or  unum,)  if 
such  body  should  at  that  time  be  any  where  else."  —  Ib. 

And  then  he  mentions  :  — 

"  2.  That  they  put  a  third  way  of  Presence  of  Christ's  Body  in  the 
Eucharist,  real  and  true,  and  tho  not  per  rnodum  quantitatis  dimen- 
sivce,  yet  per  modum  substantice,  which  they  say  is  a  mode  proper  to 
this  Sacrament,  and  such  as  hinders  not  the  same  body  at  the  same 
time  to  be  alibi,  elsewhere,  and  yet  to  remain,  tho  it  be  elsewhere, 

*  "[I  will  set  you  down  the  Doctor's  words.  (Heal  presence  §  11.  n.  17.) 
where,  after  he  hath  said,  '  that  there  is  not  in  all  School-Divinity,  nor  in  the 
old  Philosophy,  nor  in  nature,  any  more  than  three  natural  proper  ways  of  being 
in  a  place,  circumscriptivk,  definitive,  repletivi,  and  that  the  Body  of  Christ  is  not 
in  the  Sacrament  any  of  these  three  ways,'  (quoting  Turrecremata*  for  it)  he 
replies  thus  to  those  Schoolmen,  that  rejecting  these  three  ways,  do  say,  that 
Christ's  Body  is  in  a  fourth  way,  viz.  Sacramentally  in  more  places  than  one.  — 
*  This,  saith  he,  is  very  true  ;  that  is,  that  the  Sacrament  of  Christ's  Body  is  [in 
more  places  than  one}  ;  and  so  is  this  Body  [in  more  places  than  one\  figuratively, 
tropically,  representatively  in  being  [or  essence]  and  really  in  effect  and  blessing. 
But  this  is  riot  a  natural  real  being  in  a  place,  but  a  relation  to  a  person.'  Thus 
he.  But  if  thus  Christ's  Body  be  held  by  us,  as  to  its  essence,  Qn\y  figuratively, 
tropically,  and  representatively  in  more  places  than  one  ;  and  really  in  those  places 
only  in  its  effect  and  bkssing,  what  will  become  of  our  prtesentiam  non  minus  quam 
illi  veram,  (See  before  §  11.)  if  others  hold  the  presence  of  Christ's  very  essence 
and  substance  in  the  Eucharist,  we  only  the  presence  there  of  its  effect  and  bless- 
"  —  p.  16. 


*  This  is  an  error;  Bp.  Taylor  only  quotes  Turrecremata  as  denying  the  first  two  modes  of 
Presence. 


367 

indivisum  in  se ;  which  the  other  Presences,  in  their  acception  of 
them,  do  hinder." — Ib. 

In  stating  this,  however,  he  also  takes  care  to  mention 
that : — 

"  Meanwhile  other  Schoolmen  and  Controvertists  take  liberty  to 
dissent  from  these.  See  Scotusin  4  sent.  dist.  10.  q.  2.  andBellarm. 
de  Euchar.  3.  1.  3.  c.  and  it  seems  not  without  reason.  For,  why 
should  this  their  Substantial  or  Sacramental  way  (as  real  and  true  as 
any  of  the  other)  of  Christ's  Body  being  at  the  same  time  in  Heaven 
and  in  the  Eucharist,  consist  with  this  Bodie's  remaining  indivisum 
in  se  ;  more  than  the  circumscriptive  or  definitive  way,  rightly  under- 
stood, and  freed  of  their  limitations  ;  or,  why  impose  they  such  a 
notion  on  these  two  ways,  that  they  must  imply  an  exact  adequation 
of  the  place  and  the  placed,  or  exclude  it  from  being  at  all  anywhere 
else  ;  any  more  than  the  other  Substantial  or  Sacramental  way 
(which  they  maintain)  doth  ?  " — p.  18. 

Now,  no  doubt,  Woodhead  in  these  observations  starts  real 
difficulties  and  raises  perplexing  questions :  but,  perchance, 
they  can  be  answered  and  overcome,  so  far  as  the  present 
limits  of  knowledge  and  the  nature  of  the  subject  admit.  It 
may  be  that  some  such  theory  as  the  one  already  suggested  (See 
pp.  341 — 54)  touching  the  substantial  presence  of  the  Natural 
Sun  in  this  world  of  the  First  Creation,  indicates  a  not  im- 
possible mode  of  the  Real  Presence  of  the  Incarnate  Sun  of 
Righteousness  in  the  Eucharists  of  the  New  Creation  of 
God  :  and  so,  perhaps,  defenders  of  that  Presence  need  not 
stumble  at  the  language  of  the  Declaration  ;  or  be  reduced, 
in  maintaining  it,  to  the  alternative  which  Woodhead  pro- 
pounds :  for  if,  as  I  venture  to  think,  the  presence  of  the 
inorganic  Sun  here  and  in  the  Heavens  might  not  be  unphi- 
losophically  regarded  as  identical,  rather  than  as  "  an  incom- 
prehensible continuation,"  or  as  "  the  presence  of  the  true  and 
real  effect"  ;  then  (to  speak  with  all  reverence)  it  is  surely  as 
possible  that  the  like  may  be  predicated  of  the  organic  Body 
of  Christ ;  especially  if,  as  is  necessary,  we  remember  that  that 
Body  is  now  a  SPIRITUAL  (though  a  REAL)  Body,  and  consider 
also  what  may  be  effected  by  the  active  Power  of  His  Will  as 
compared  with  the  passive  force  of  that  "  Greater  Light" 
which  He  made.  So,  then,  it  seems  to  me  that  a  "  presence 


368 

of  Christ's  very  essence  and  substance  in  the  Eucharist"  is 
conceivable,  which  is  not,  what  is  usually  understood  by,  a 
material  presence ;  and  which,  after  all,  may  be  free  from  the 
objections  which  Woodhead  enumerates. 

But  even  should  it  be  otherwise,  and  these  apparent  con- 
tradictions remain  unreconciled,  such  a  result  would  not,  I 
think,  here  any  more  than  in  the  former  part  of  Woodhead's 
argument,  support  Mr.  Goode's  inference  from,  what  he  calls, 
that  writer's  admissions :  for  the  difficulties  apply  quite  as 
much  to  what  he  terms  "  the  Real  bodily  presence  ...to  the 
receiver"  as  they  do  to  that  Presence  if  alleged  to  be  "  to  the 
Elements/' 

Woodhead  proceeds,  however,  to  urge  his  difficulties  as  an 
argument  against  the  original  language  of  the  Declaration ; 
contending  that — 

"...  .these  words  [Real  and  essential  presence']  seem  as  truly  denied 
to  be  in  the  Eucharist,  by  the  first  composers  of  the  foresaid  Decla- 
ration in  the  latter  end  of  King  Edward's  dayes,  as  the  words  [Cor- 
poral and  Natural  presence"]  are  in  this  2nd  Edition  thereof  in  A.D. 
1661...." 

But  if  I  have  correctly  alleged  throughout  that  the  "  reall 
and  essenciall  presence"  of  the  first  Declaration  was  designed 
to  mean  exactly  the  same  as  the  "  corporal  presence"  of  the 
second  Declaration,  then  Woodhead's  argument  falls  to  the 
ground ;  because  "  real  and  essential"  did  not  import  what 
he  assumes  them  to  have  meant ;  and  that  this  was  so,  is  plain, 
I  think,  from  the  language  of  Bp.  Ridley,  who,  it  cannot  be 
reasonably  doubted  (See  Cranmer's  Letter,  p.  77)  had  an 
important  share  in  framing  the  first  Declaration  ;  for  in  his 
"  Disputation  at  Oxford,"  full  two  years  afterwards,  he 
distinctly  opposes  Transubstantiation  (from  which,  he  says, 
"  they  gather  that  Christ's  Body  is  really  contained  in  the 
Sacrament  of  the  Altar")  on  this  very  ground  that  "  it  main- 
taineth  a  real,  corporal,  and  carnal  presence  of  Christ's  Flesh, 
....  and  that  not  by  virtue  and  grace  only,  but  also  by  the 
whole  essence  and  substance"  thereof.  (See  p.  53.)  Here, 
then,  are  the  very  words  of  the  Declaration  " real"=  corporal: 


369 

"essential"=  substantial:  each  term  and  its  synonym  being, 
(as  it  seems  to  me)  in  Ridley's  mind,  the  equivalent  of 
"carnal."  Moreover,  in  that  very  argument,  he  drew  a  dis- 
tinction between  " really "="transce7tdenter," in  "which  sort" 
he  says  "  we  also  grant  Christ's  Body  to  be  really  in  the 
Sacrament ;"  and  "  really  "="  the  true  manner  of  His  Body," 
"  in  which  sense  ....  it  may  not  be  said  to  be  here  in  the 
Earth." 

I  am  not  here  overlooking  Ridley's  statement  that  the 
Presence  is  "by  virtue  and  grace  only:"  yet  I  cannot  but 
think  that  by  those  terms  he  meant  more  than,  what  is  now 
called,  a  virtual  Presence,  i.  e.t  a  mere  potential  Presence  by 
an  agent  or  substitute;  though  it  is  true  (See  p.  14)  that  in 
the  Cambridge  Disputation,  1549,  he  resorts  to  an  illustration 
which  seems  scarcely  to  exceed  it :  but  then  his  later  lan- 
guage, in  1555,  where  he  takes  his  example  from  the  Sun 
(See  p.  44)  must  be  held,  surely,  to  surpass  this ;  unless,  in- 
deed, any  will  contend  that  there  is  no  difference  between  the 
Presence  of  a  King  by  his  "  mighty  power  and  authority 
[which]  is  everywhere  in  his  realms  and  dominions  "  and  the 
Presence  of  the  Sun  "  by  its  beams,  light,  and  natural  in- 
fluence, when  it  shineth  upon  the  Earth."  In  truth,  this  is 
just  one  of  those  instances  of  want  of  consistency  in  the  use 
of  terms  which  I  have  already  had  occasion  to  notice  as  ren- 
dering the  arguments  of  the  Reformation  Writers  so  perplex- 
ing at  times  to  us.  However,  in  this  very  argument  (also  of 
the  later  date,  1555)  where  Ridley  uses  the  words  "  virtue 
and  grace  "  he  allows  (See  p.  55)  that  if  by  "  real  presence  " 
is  not  meant  "  real  and  corporal  substance,"  but  "  something 
that  appertaineth  to  Christ's  Body,"  then  "  the  ascension  and 
abiding  in  Heaven  are  no  let  at  all  to  that  presence  :"  and  he 
adds,  "  Wherefore  Christ's  Body,  after  that  sort,  is  here  pre- 
sent to  us  in  the  Lord's  Supper  ;  by  grace,  I  say,  as  Epi- 
phanius  speaketh  of  it."  Perhaps,  too,  this  last  expression 
may  be  advantageously  noticed  in  connection  with  another 
remark,  made  by  Woodhead,  as  to  the  "  contradiction  "  of 
saying  "  that  the  natural  Body  of  Christ  is  not  here  in  the 

B  B  B 


370 

Eucharist, but  only  in  heaven;  yet*. ..that  the  natural  Body 
of  Christ  is  here  in  the  Eucharist  received.  It,  the  body  that 
was  born  of  the  B.  Virgin,  not  a  grace  only,  not  a  Spirit 
only,  but  it  itself, , . . . "  Ridley,  it  will  be  observed,  does  not 
speak  of  the  Presence  of  the  grace  of  Christ's  Body,  but  of 
Its  Presence  by  grace. 

The  third  subject  of  which  Woodhead  treats  is  the  state- 
ment of  the  Declaration,  that  by  Kneeling, 

"  no  adoration  is  intended,  or  ought  to  be  done  unto  any  corporal 
presence  of  Christ's  natural  flesh  and  blood." — p.  4. 

With  reference  to  this  he  quotes  Bishop  Andrews,  Bishop 
Taylor,  Bishop  Forbes,  the  Archbishop  of  Spalato,  and  Mr. 
Thorndyke,  "  to  shew  that  the  Church  of  England  hath 
heretofore  believed  and  affirmed  such  a  Presence  to  which 
they  thought  Adoration  due "  (p.  28) :  yet  he,  somewhat 
strangely,  argues  that  the  Declaration,  owing  to  the  reasons 
assigned  in  it, 

"  seems  clearly  to  deny  Adoration  due  to  Christ's  Body  as  any 
way  present  in  the  Eucharist ;  contrary  to  the  fore-cited  doctrine, 
and  contrary  to  the  religion  of  King  James  and  Bishop  Andrews 
published  to  the  world  abroad.  Or  at  least,  in  thus  denying  adora- 
tion due  to  a  corporal  presence,  and  then  not  declaring  any  other 
presence  of  Christ's  body  in  the  Sacrament  that  is  adorable,  when  as 
such  a  Presence  they  believe  ;  it  seems  to  betray  the  communicants 
to  a  greater  miscarriage  in  their  behaviour,  as  to  such  our  Saviour's 
presence  at  the  receiving  of  these  dreadful  Mysteries ;  and  to 
abridge  this  duty  of  that  extent  in  which  it  had  formerly  been  recom- 
mended by  this  Church." — p.  29. 

But  such  reasoning  seems  to  me  most  illogical,  and  not  a 
little  surprising,  as  coming  from  a  writer  like  Woodhead ; 
surely  the  very  fact  that  the  Declaration  condemns  one  par- 
ticular mode  of  Presence  implies  that  its  framers  did  not 
design  to  exclude  the  belief  of  any  other  than  that  mode : 
everything  connected  with  the  history  of  the  Declaration,  and 
the  opinions  of  its  framers  and  revisers,  goes  to  prove,  I 
think,  that,  as  they  had  neither  the  desire  nor  the  intention 
of  needlessly  paring  down  opinions  on  so  difficult  a  subject 
so,  they  contented  themselves  with  asserting  what  alone  they 


371 

thought  it  essential  to  maintain  in  the  way  of  negation. 
If  this  be  so,  there  could  be  no  contemplated  discouragement 
of  any  Adoration  short  of  what  necessarily  involved  the  main- 
tenance of  that  manner  of  Presence  which  was  explicitly  de- 
nied :  while,  so  far  from  the  Declaration  tending  "  to  betray 
the  communicants  to  a  greater  miscarriage  in  their  behaviour  " 
we  may  fairly  believe  that  it  was  thought  a  not  improbable 
security  against  that  irreverence  which  past  experience  had 
found  to  result  from  the  popular  notion  of  just  such  a  Carnal 
Presence  as  it  was  the  object  of  the  Declaration  to  condemn 
and  to  discourage. 

In  passing  now  from  this  notice  of  Woodhead's  Book, 
which  has  been  necessitated  by  Mr.  Goode's  reference  to  it, 
I  will  only  further  observe — that  if  Woodhead's  citations  from 
English  Divines,  under  the  two  former  portions  of  his  argu- 
ment, do  not  sustain  the  inference  which  Mr.  Goode  draws 
from  them,  still  less  can  such  an  inference  be  made  from  the 
language  of  those  Authors  quoted  in  the  argument  last 
noticed. 

But  Mr.  Goode  refers  also  to  Woodhead's  "  Compendious 
Discourse  on  the  Eucharist :  Oxford,  1688,  p.  S3  et  seq.  and 
App.  p.  212,"  for  further  proof  that  that  writer,  when  com- 
menting upon  the  language  of  "  those  who  held  the  highest 
doctrine  of  the  Real  Presence  ever  maintained  in  our 
Reformed  Church,"  was  "  obliged  to  admit  that  their  notion 
of  the  Real  bodily  presence  was  that  it  was  a  presence  to  the 
receiver,  but  not  to  the  elements.1' 

Before,  however,  examining  Woodhead's  statements,  it  is 
of  consequence  to  notice  that  Mr.  Goode's  expression  "  Real 
bodily  presence  "  is  inaccurate  and  tends  to  mislead  ;  for  by 
"bodily  "  is  almost  certain  to  be  understood  "corporal" — 
the  very  idea  condemned  by  the  Declaration  and  by  the 
writers  in  question.  Nor,  indeed,  does  Woodhead  use 
this  word  in  reference  to  these  writers  :  he  speaks  of  their 
holding  "  the  real  or  substantial  presence  of  Christ's  body ;" 
but  this  is  a  very  different  thing ;  and,  in  fact,  involves 
the  precise  point  upon  which  the  Declaration  turns — viz., 


372 

the  distinction  between  a  bodily=organicalPresence  of  Christ's 
Body  ;  and  a  substantial=spiritual  Presence  of  Christ's  Body 
— a  distinction  not  (as  many  might  be  inclined  to  think) 
without  a  difference,  and  that  the  really  important  one  which, 
it  must  have  been  observed,  continually  appears  in  the 
controversies  which  have  been  referred  to  in  these  pages. 

Woodhead's  statement,  in  the  passage  (p.  30,  &c.)  to  which 
Mr.  Goode  refers,  is  as  follows  ;  he  says  : — 

"  Now  to  come  to  the  second  thing,  its  affirming,  or  denying,  the 
real  or  substantial  presence  of  Christ's  body  with  the  signs,  and  that, 
ante  usum.  And  this  I  think  to  be  generally  denied  by  the 
2nd  opinion,*  (tho*  I  see  not  with  what  reason  they  can  deny 
a  possibility  thereof,  since  they  grant  such  a  presence  with  the 
worthy  receiver.)  See  Mr.  Hooker  5.  /.,  67-  s.,  p.  359.  *  The  real 
presence  of  Christ's  most  blessed  body  and  blood  is  not  to  be  sought 
for  in  the  Sacrament,  but  in  the  worthy  receiver  of  the  Sacrament.'  " 

This  is  the  well  known  passage  so  often  quoted  to  prove 
that  Hooker  was  not  one  of  those  Post-reformation  Divines 
"  who  held  the  highest  doctrine  of  the  Real  Presence ;"  and 
therefore  he  cannot  be  fairly  cited  by  Mr.  Goode  as  a  witness 
in  this  case :  whether  his  language  necessarily  implies  a  denial 
of  such  Presence  "  in  the  Sacrament"  may,  I  think,  be  fairly 
questioned.  His  object  seems  mainly  to  have  been  to  dis- 
courage controversy  on  this  point,  and  to  promote  unity  by 
drawing  attention  to  the  fact  that  "no  side  denieth  but  that  the 
soul  of  man  is  the  receptacle  of  Christ's  presence :"  though, 
plainly,  he  was  also  moved  by  the  consideration — that  those 
who  held  that  "  Christ's  body  and  blood  be  also  externally 
seated  in  the  very  consecrated  elements  themselves ;  . . . .  are 
driven  either  to  consubstantiate  and  incorporate  Christ  with 
elements  sacramental,  or  to  transubstantiate  and  change  their 

*  The  Second  Opinion  goes  beyond  this  [f.  e.  a  "  Virtual  Presence "],  or  at 
least  seems  so  (for  I  must  confess  I  do  not  well  understand  it,  and  we  shall  look 
more  into  it  anon)  and  affirms  a  real  Presence  of  Christ's  Body,  not  in  its  virtue, 
but  in  its  very  substance ;  but  in  this,  not  after  a  natural  or  carnal,  but  spiritual, 
manner;  not  to  all:  but  only  to  the  worthy  Receivers.  To  them,  (i.e.)  to  their 
Souls  and  Spirits,  by  the  susception  of  Faith,  and  not  to  their  Mouth  or  their 
Body.  Again,  to  them,  but  not  to  the  symbols  at  all ;  or  if  in  some  sense  to 
these  (as  Mr.  Hooker,  I.  5.,  s.  67,  saith,  they  really  exhibit,  but  not  contain  in 
them,  that  which  with,  or  by,  them  God  bestoweth),  yet  not  ante  usum,  or  before 
the  act  of  Receiving."  " "—p.  1. 


373 

substance  into  His;  and  so  the  one  to  hold  Him  really 
but  invisibly  moulded  up  with  the  substance  of  those 
elements,  the  other  to  hide  Him  under  the  only  visible 
show  of  bread  and  wine,  the  substance  whereof  as  they 
imagine  is  abolished  and  His  succeeded  in  the  same  room." 
If,  then,  there  be  a  mode  of  Presence  in,  with,  or,  under 
the  elements,  which  yet  is  neither  of  these  two,  Hooker's 
language  does  not  exclude  a  "  Real  presence  in  the  Sacra- 
ment." * 

But  Woodhead  goes  on  to  say : — 

"  See  Dr.  Tailor,  p.  14.  '  By  spiritual  we  mean,  present  to  our 
spirits  only  :  that  is,  saith  he,  so  as  Christ  is  not  present  to  any  other 
sense  but  that  of  faith,  or  Spiritual  susception,'  Where  (to  digress  a 
little,)  I  wonder  why  he  and  some  others  (so  Dr.  Hammond  saith, 
[/or  our  souls  to  be  strengthened,  etc.,]  quoted  before  f)  do  not  say, 

*  "  .  .  .  Hooker  considered  the  very  life  and  substance  of  saving  truth  to  be 
in  jeopardy,  as  on  the  side  of  the  Romanists,  so  on  that  of  the  Lutherans  also, 
by  reasonings  likely  to  be  grounded,  whether  logically  or  no,  on  the  tenet  which 
they  taught  in  common  of  the  proper  ubiquity  of  our  Saviour's  glorified  Body 
in  the  Eucharist.  Evidently  it  was  a  feeling  of  this  kind,  rather  than  any  fear 
of  exaggerating  the  honour  due  to  that  blessed  Sacrament,  which  reigns  in 
those  portions  of  the  fifth  Book,  where  he  lays  down  certain  limitations,  under 
which  the  Doctrine  of  the  Real  Presence  must  be  received.  The  one  drift  and 
purpose  of  all  those  limitations  is,  to  prevent  any  heretical  surmise,  of  our 
Lord's  manhood  now  being,  or  having  been  at  any  time  since  His  incarnation, 
other  than  most  true  and  substantial  Whatever  notion  of  the  Real  Presence 
does  not  in  effect  interfere  with  this  foundation  of  the  faith,  that,  the  genuine 
philosophy  of  Hooker,  no  less  than  his  sound  theology,  taught  him  to  embrace 
with  all  his  heart.  No  writer,  since  the  primitive  times,  has  shown  himself  in  this 
and  in  all  parts  of  his  writings  more  thoroughly  afraid  of  those  tendencies,  which 
in  our  age  are  called  Utilitarian  and  Rationalist.  If  at  any  time  he  seem  over 
scrupulous  in  the  use  of  ideas  or  phrases,  from  which  the  early  fathers  saw 
no  reason  to  shrink,  it  is  always  the  apprehension  of  irreverence,  not  of  the 
contrary,  which  is  present  to  his  mind.  For  example,  let  the  three  following 
passages  only  be  well  considered  and  compared:  *.  e.,  as  they  stand  with  their 
context ;  for  in  these  critical  parts  more  especially,  no  separate  citation  can  ever 
do  Hooker  justice. 

"  1.  'Christ's  body  being  a  part  of  that  nature,  which  whole  nature  is  pre- 
sently joined  unto  Deity  wheresoever  Deity  is,  it  followeth  that  His  bodily 
substance  hath  everywhere  a  presence  of  true  conjunction  with  Deity.  And 
forasmuch  as  it  is  by  -virtue  of  that  conjunction  made  the  body  of  the  Son  of 
God,  by  whom  also  it  was  made  a  sacrifice  for  the  sins  of  the  whole  world,  this 
giveth  it  a  presence  of  force  and  efficacy  throughout  all  generations  of  men.' — 
Eccl.,  Pol.  v.  Iv.  9." — The  other  two  pages  referred  to  are  Ibid.  v.  Ivi.  9  and  13. 
—  Keble's  Preface,  pp.  Ixxx— Ixxxii. 

f  "I  will  add  to  these  of  Dr.  Taylor's,  an  expression  of  Dr.  Hammond's. 
Tract.  Cat.  where  he  speaks  of  the  Eucharist,  —  "  God  bestows  the  body  and 
blood  of  Christ  upon  us  not  by  sending  it  down  locally  for  our  bodies  to  feed  on, 
but  really  for  our  souls  to  be  strengthened  by  it.  As  when  the  Sun  is  com- 


374 

that  Christ's  body  is  substantially  present  to  the  bodies  of  worthy 
receivers,  as  well  as  to  the  souls,  (yet,  perhaps,  they  deny  it  not) ; 
for  tho'  the  body  of  Christ  be  only  spiritually  there,  yet  may  a  spirit 
be  present  to  a  body,  for  our  souls  (spirits)  are  so " 

Yet,  surely,  such  lanugage  is  no  denial  of  a  Real  Presence 
"to  the  Elements."  Taylor's  words  are  but  another  way  of 
expressing  what  Bishop  Guest  said,  (See  p.  193,) — "though 
he  tooke  Christ's  body  in  his  hand,  received  it  with  his  mouthe, 
and  that  corporally,  naturally,  reallye,  substantially,  and 
carnally,  as  ye  doctors  doo  write,  yet  did  he  not  for  all  that 
see  it,  feale  it,  smelle  it,  nor  taste  it."  Seeing,  therefore, 
that  Guest  held, — that  the  belief  of  Christ's  Body  being  not 
cognizable  by  the  senses  was  entirely  consistent  with  the  belief 
of  "ye  presence  of  Christe's  Bodye  in  ye  Sacrament" — the 
same  may  fairly  be  asserted  of  this  passage  which  Woodhead 
quotes. 

Again,  his  language  is  : — 

"  See  what  Bishop  Forbes  saith,  Euchar)  1.1.  I.e.  27.  s.  *  Verum 
Christi  corpus  non  tantum  animae,  sed  etiam  corpori  nostro,  spiritu- 
aliter  tamen,  hoc  est,  non  corporaliter,  exhibetur,  et  sane  alio  ac 
diverse  nobis  et  propinquiori  modo,  licet  occulto,  quam  per  solam 

fidem Fides,  qua  proprie  Christi  caro  in  Eucharistia  spiritu- 

aliter,  hoc  est,  incorporaliter  manducatur,  non  est  ea  sola,  qua 
Christus  creditur  mortuus  pro  peccatis  nostris,  etc.,  ea  enim  fides 
prae-supponitur,  etc.  Sed  ea  fides  est,  qua  creditur  verbo  Christi 
dicentis.  Hoc  est  corpus  meum.  Credere  enim  Christum  ibi  esse 
praesentem  etiam  carne  vivificatrice,  et  desiderare  earn  sumere  ; 
nimirum  hoc  est  spiritualiter  et  recte  earn  manducare  in  Euchar- 
istia. Sect.  25.  Proinde  male  docetur  a  multis  Protestantibus,  hanc 

praesentiam    et   communicationem   per   fidem   effici Fides 

magis  proprie  dicitur  accipere,  etc.,  apprehendere,  quam  praestare. 
Verbum  Dei  et  promissio,  cui  fides  nostra  nititur,  praesentia  reddit 
quse  promittit,  non  nostra  fides.'  Tis  not  faith  that  confers  Christ's 
body,  though  by  the  faithful  it  is  only  worthily,  or,  (as  they  say,) 

municated  to  us,  the  whole  bulk  and  body  of  the  Sun  is  not  removed  out  of  its 
sphere,  but  the  Eays  and  Beams  of  it,  and  with  them  the  Light  and  Influences 
are  really  and  verily  bestowed  and  darted  out  upon  us."  Thus  he.  As,  therefore, 
not  the  Body  of  the  Sun,  but  only  the  Beams  thereof,  can  be  said  to  be  really  and 
locally  here  below ;  so,  I  conceive  the  Doctor  means,  that  not  the  very  body  of 
Christ  but  the  vertue  and  efficacy  thereof  only,  are  really  here  present  to  the 
worthy  receiver." — p.  27.  But,  the  question  arises, — Are  not  the  Beams  of  the 
Sun  something  more  than  "the  vertue  and  efficacy1'  of  the  Sun  ?  And  if  fas  I 
think  and  have  already  argued)  they  are,  then  the  Eucharistic  Presence  of  Christ 
is  also  something  more  than  "  the  vertue  and  efficacy"  of  His  body. 


375 

only  received,  but  received  equally,  and  immediately  both  by  the 
soul  and  body  :  whether  this  body  of  Christ  be  disjoined  from,  as 
they  think,  or  conjoined  with  the  Elements." 

But  does  the  passage  quoted  from  Bishop  Forbes  bear  out 
the  inference  which  Woodhead  would  apparently  draw  from 
it  ?  I  cannot  think  it  does :  and,  indeed,  Woodhead  himself 
here,  as  elsewhere,  speaks  doubtfully  of  this  writer,  and  of 
the  class  to  which  he  considers  him  to  belong.  To  my  mind 
it  needs  some  positive  statement  to  that  effect,  before  any 
absolute  negation  of  a  Real  Presence  in  or  with  the  Elements 
can  be  safely  concluded  from  such  a  passage  as  this. 

Woodhead  ends  this  Section  by  quoting  the  four  following 
passages  from  Bishop  Taylor : — 

"  See  Dr.  Tailor,  p.  7.  *  After  the  Minister  hath  consecrated  the 
bread  and  wine,  the  symbols  become  changed  into  the  body  and 
blood  of  Christ  in  a  Spiritual,  real  manner.' 

'*  So,  p.  21.  *  The  question  is  not,  whether  the  Symbols  be  changed 
into  Christ's  body  and  blood  or  no,  for  it  is  granted ;  but  whether 
this  conversion  be  Sacramental  and  figurative,  or  natural  and  bodily, 
etc.' 

"  So,  p.  265,  266.  'Before  consecration  it  is  mere  bread,  but  after 
consecration  it  is,  verily,  the  body  of  Christ,  truly  his  flesh,  and 
truly  his  blood.' 

"But  especially  see  such  full  expressions  in  his  Great  Exemplar, 
3d.  part.  disc.  18,  p.  109,  in  the  former  Edition,  Sect.  3,  where 
amongst  other  things  he  saith :  *  It  is  hard  to  do  so  much  violence 
to  our  sense,  as  not  to  think  it  bread ;  but  it  is  more  unsafe,  to  do  so 
much  violence  to  our  faith,  as  not  to  believe  it  to  be  Christ's  body.' 
(Again.)  '  He  that  believes  it  to  be  bread,  and,  yet  verily  to  be 
Christ's  body,  is  only  tied  also  by  implication  to  believe  God's  omni- 
potence, that  he  who  affirmed  it,  can  also  verify  it.  And  if  we 
profess  we  understand  not  the  manner  of  this  Mystery,  we  say  no 
more,  but  that  it  is  a  mystery,  etc.*  " 

It  is  plain,  however,  that  Woodhead  himself  was  per- 
plexed by  these  passages  when  citing  Bishop  Taylor  as  one 
of  those  who  held  what  he  terms  "  The  Second  Opinion," 
(See  p.  372) ;  for  he  prefaces  the  First  quotation  with  these 
words — 

"...  whilst  this  second  opinion  seems  to  hold  no  presence  at  all,  to 
or  with,  the  signs,  but  to  the  receiver,  they  only  making  the  signs  to 
be  (as  well  as  I  can  understand  them)  after  Consecration  sanctified 


376 

instruments,  upon  receit  of  which  by  those  who  believe,  God  gives 
the  other,  the  body  and  blood  of  his  Son :  as  also  in  Baptism  upon 
receiving  the  water,  God  gives  the  Spirit ;" 

And  then,  remarkably  enough  he  adds — 

"  Yet  I  say,  some  other  expressions  of  their's  seem  not  so  suit- 
able to  such  a  meaning,  and  may  easily  cause  a  mistake  in  the 
unwary  reader  ;  and  why  they  use  them  I  cannot  tell,  unless  it  be 
to  imitate  the  phrase  of  the  words  of  Institution,  and  also  of  the 
Fathers."— p.  32. 

So  again,  most  significantly,  I  think,  he  thus  comments  on 
the  last  quotation  from  Bishop  Taylor: — 

"  Strange  expressions !  when  the  thing  required  to  be  believed  is 
this  :  That  Christ's  body  is  in  no  way  present  to  the  bread,  neither 
by  the  bread  being  changed  into  it,  nor  joyned  with  it ;  but  only  it 
given  and  present  to  the  faithful,  upon  the  receipt  of  this  sanctified 
bread. 

"  Now  would  any  discourse  of  the  waters  of  Baptism,  by  which 
the  Spirit  is  received,  on  this  manner ;  It  is  hard  to  do  so  much 
violence  to  the  sense,  as  not  to  think  it  water,  but  it  is  more  unsafe  to 
do  so  much  violence  to  our  faith,  as  not  to  believe  it  to  be  the  Spirit. 
Would  not  he  rather  explain  himself,  that  the  one  is  not  the  other ; 
but  the  one  received,  by  God's  free  gift,  upon  the  receiving  of  the 
other?"— p.  33. 

Seeing,  then,  that  Woodhead  confesses  this  difficulty  in 
Bishop  Taylor's  language,  we  may  fairly  refuse  to  accept  the 
unqualified  conclusion  which  Mr.  Goode  has  drawn  from  the 
way  in  which  Woodhead  has  appealed  to  the  Bishop's  argu- 
ments :  moreover,  the  very  difficulty  is  itself  a  presumption 
that  the  passages  do  not  condemn  the  opinion  which 
Mr.  Goode  would  cite  them  to  disprove :  and  it  is  worth  ob- 
serving, in  confirmation  of  this  remark,  that  Woodhead  says 
"perhaps  some  of  them  [i.e.,  the  holders  of  this  (  Second 
Opinion  ']  do  not,"  in  the  passages  he  quotes,  "peremptorily 
condemn  the  conjectures  of  others." — (p.  £1).  In  proof  of 
this  he  goes  on  to  say  thus : — 

"See  for  what  I  have  now  said  (besides  the  quotations  before, 
p.  2,  in  the  relation  of  this  second  opinion)  many  places  in 
Dr.  Tailor,  the  very  Title  of  his  book,  wherein  Spiritual  must  be 
took  in  such  a  sense,  as  not  to  deny  real ;  and  of  Christ,  must  be 
understood  of  the  Body  and  Blood  of  Christ :  For  this  he  saith  often 
in  the  Book,  namely,  p*  7,  see  p.  20,  where,  in  answering  some  hard 


377 

sayings  of  the  Fathers,  &c.,  as  if  the  same  Body  that  was  crucified, 
was  not  eaten  in  the  Sacrament,  he  saith,  *  That  Proposition  is  true, 
if  we  speak  of  the  eating  of  Christ's  Body  in  the  same  manner  of 
being  ['  for  it  had  one  manner  of  being  on  the  Cross,  and  another 
in  the  Sacrament '].  But  that  Body  which  was  crucified,  the  same 
Body  we  do  eat,  if  we  speak  of  the  same  thing  in  a  several  manner 
of  being,  &c.  Christ's  Body  therefore  is  in  the  Sacrament,  not  only 
in  its  operation,  but  being  ;  though  after  another  manner  of  being 
than  it  was  on  the  Cross.  And  what  Dr.  Taylor  saith,  methinks, 
answers  several  arguments  brought  afterward  by  himself  out  of  the 
Fathers  against  real  presence  under,  or  with  the  symbols,  see  p.  311. 
Non  hoc  quod  videtis,  &c.  See  p.  288.  They  that  do  not  confess  the 
Eucharist  to  be  the  Flesh  of  our  Saviour,  &c.  See  p«  5,  where  he  will 
have  spiritual  presence  to  be  particular  in  nothing,  but  that  it 
excludes  the  corporal  and  natural  manner,  &c.  See  ArchB.  Laud, 
p.  286,  where  he  saith,  The  worthy  Receiver  is  by  his  Faith  made 
Spiritually  partaker  of  the  true  and  real  Body  and  Blood  of  Christ,  &c. 
And  ArchB.  Cranmer  (as  the  ArchB.  quotes  out  of  Fox,  p.  1703) 
confesseth,  that  though  he  was  indeed  of  another  opinion,  and  in- 
clining to  that  of  Zwinglius,  yet  B.  Ridley  convinc'd  his  judgment, 
and  settled  him  in  the  point." — pp.  24-25. 

Woodhead's  remark,  that  Bishop  Taylor  "  will  have 
spiritual  presence  to  be  particular  in  nothing,  but  that  it 
excludes  the  corporal  and  natural  manner,"  seems  to  me  per- 
tinent to,  what  I  think  is,  Mr.  Goode's  aggravation  of  the 
confessed  difficulty  of  this  question,  in  assuming,  as  he  does, 
that  "  the  supposed  presence  in  the  Eucharist  is  only  a  pre- 
sence of  his  [Christ's]  body  after  a  spiritual  an<J  super- 
natural manner,  that  is,  a  state  of  existence  after  the  manner 
of  a  spirit."  (On  the  Eucharist,  p.  49).  He  insists  upon  this 
in  several  places*  in  his  "Work  on  the  Eucharist."  But 

*  p.  50.  "  And  as  to  its  [Christ'*  Body]  being  present  only  after  the  manner 
of  a  spirit,  I  ask,  with  Bishop  Jeremy  Taylor,  *  Can  a  body  remaining  a  body  be 
at  the  same  time  a  spirit?'" 

p.  183.  "This  doctrine  supposes  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ  partaken  of  in 
the  Eucharist  to  be  immaterial  and  like  a  spirit,  while  the  words  of  our  Lord 
shew  us,  that  the  body  to  be  eaten  there  is  the  material  body  that  was  crucified 
on  the  cross,  and  the  blood  to  be  drunk  there  is  the  blood  shed  on  the  cross." 

p.  184.  "  This  doctrine  supposes  an  oral  manducation  of  an  immaterial  thing, 
a  thing  present  only  after  the  mode  of  existence  belonging  to  a  spirit ;  which  is 
a  manifest  absurdity." 

p.  211.  "  But  those  who  are  not  so  easily  influenced  by  words  and  names  are 
inclined  to  carry  their  researches  a  little  further.  They  naturally  ask  them- 
selves the  question,  whether  our  old  divines  really  tho'ught  that  a  body  re- 
maining a  body  could  be  at  the  same  time  a  spirit,  and  that  our  Lord's  body, 

c  c  c 


378 

"  the  manner  of  a  spirit "  may  be,  in  one  sense,  said  to  be 
the  manner  of  a  body;  for  though  a  Spirit  is  an  immaterial 
Body  (using  the  word  immaterial  in  a  popular,  and  not  a 
strictly  philosophical  sense),  it  is  nevertheless  a  body,  by 
reason  of  its  non-ubiquity,  while  yet  capable  of  motion  in  a 
manner  which  does  not  pertain  to  material  bodies.  There- 
fore, to  make  spiritual  presence^the  manner  of  a  spirit, 
seems  equivalent  to  the  holding  of  the  st  Corporal  Presence," 
which  the  Declaration  condemns  on  the  ground  of  "  it  being 
against  the  truth  of  Christ's  natural  Body  to  be  at  one  time 
in  more  places  than  one."  Bishop  Taylor  (in  the  passage 
quoted  by  Mr.  Goode,  p.  843),  complaining  of  Bellarmine, 
says  that 

"  Spiritually  with  him  signifies  after  the  manner  of  Spirits,"  and 
adds  that  "  They  say  that  Christ's  body  is  truly  present  there  [in 
the  Sacrament]  as  it  was  upon  the  Cross,  but  not  after  the  manner 
of  all  or  anybody,  but  after  that  manner  of  being  as  an  angel  is  in  a 
place.  That's  their  spiritually.  But  we  by  the  real  spiritual 
presence  of  Christ  do  understand  Christ  to  be  present  as  the 
Spirit  of  God  is  present  in  the  hearts  of  the  faithful  by  blessing 
and  grace;  and  this  is  all  which  we  mean  besides  the  tropical 
and  figurative  presence." 

The  Bishop's  objection  to  regarding  the  Eucharistic  Pre- 
sence as  "  after  that  manner  of  being  as  an  angel  is  in 
a  place"  is  forcible  enough;  for  such  a  Presence  is  really 
the  "  Corporal  Presence  of"  a  "natural  Body"  (here  limit- 
ing the  word  Natural  to  a  Created  Being,  and  not  referring  it 
to,  e.g.,  the  atmosphere) :  the  point  to  be  considered  is — how 
he  understood  that  "the  Spirit  of  God  is  present  in  the  hearts 
of  the  faithful  by  blessing  and  grace  ?" — could  he  do  otherwise 
than  consider  it  as  a  REAL  presence  when  he  remembered,  as  he 
must  have  done,  that  aspiration  of  St.  Paul  for  the  Ephesian 
Church  "  to  be  strengthened  with  might  by  His  [Christ's] 
Spirit  in  the  inner  man ;  That  Christ  may  dwell  in  your 

remaining  in  heaven  in  a  material  form,  could  at  the  same  time  be  present  on 
hundreds  of  thousands  of  communion  tables  all  over  the  world  in  the  form  of  a 
spirit ;  so  united,  as  a  whole  and  perfect  body,  to  every  minute  fragment  of  the 
Eucharistic  bread,  or  form  of  bread,  as  to  be  eaten  with  it  by  every  com- 
municant; .  .  .  ." 


379 

hearts  by  faith  "  (Eph.  iii.  16  and  17)  ?  It  seems  to  me  that 
he  could  not.  And  I  venture  to  think  that,  in  rejecting 
the  Analogy  which  he  condemned,  Bishop  Taylor  might 
willingly  and  consistently  enough  have  accepted  what  appears 
to  be  the  only  practicable  analogy  in  this  case,  namely,  that 
of  the  Natural  Sun  which  has  been  already  considered :  to 
my  mind,  it  meets  the  difficulty  in  a  way  which  no  other 
comparison  does,  and  has  the  advantage  of  being  both  Scrip- 
tural and  not  new,  though  it  is  legitimate  enough  (as  I  have 
already  argued)  to  view  it  in  any  new  aspect  which  the  Light 
of  modern  Science  affords. 

Mr.  Goode  refers  also  to,  "  App.  p.  212,"  of  Woodhead's 
Discourse :  he  does  not  give  the  words,  but  I  presume  he 
must  refer  to  the  following  passage : — 

"  .  .  .  .  Afterward  Archbishop  Laud  restored  it,  [z.  e.t  the  sen- 
tence '  that  these  Thy  Gifts  and  Creatures  of  Bread  and  Wine  may 
be  to  us  the  Body  and  Blood  of  Thy  Dear  /Son,']  in  the  Scottish 
Liturgy.  For  which  he  was  severely  censur'd  by  Baily's  Laud- 
ensium  Autocatacrisis.  This  being,  as  he  saith,  a  notable  Argument 
for  Transubstantiation  ;  at  least,  for  the  real  presence  to  the  Receiver 
it  was.  Though  it  is  most  certain,  tbe  Archbishop  did  not  incline 
to  defend  Transubstantiation,  but  only  the  real  presence  to  the  Re- 
ceiver, according  to  the  Doctrine  of  the  Church  of  England,  mis- 
understood by  that  Puritan." 

It  is  just  worth  observing  that  this  Appendix  seems  not  to 
be  Woodhead's  at  all,  and  perhaps  Mr.  Goode  does  not 
quote  it  as  such  :  but  this  is  not  material  to  the  question 
which  hinges  upon  the  quotation,  viz,,  whether  Archbishop 
Laud,  as  one  of  "those  who  held  the  highest  doctrine  of  the 
Real  Presence  ever  maintained  in  our  Reformed  Church," 
held  only  "a  Presence  to  the  receiver,  but  not  to  the 
elements"  The  Appendix  writer  asserts  that  the  Arch- 
bishop defended  "  only  the  Real  presence  to  the  Receiver :" 
but  a  careful  consideration  of  his  language,  as  subsequently 
given  at  pp.  390-3,  can  scarcely  fail  to  raise  a  grave  doubt 
as  to  the  accuracy  of  the  allegation. 

As  touching,  however,  this  point  upon  which  Mr.  Goode 
so  much  insists,  of  the  Presence  being  "  to  the  Receiver  but 


380 

not  to  the  Elements"  it  will  be  as  well  to  notice  here  the  fol- 
lowing passages  in  his  "  Supplement"  p.  29  :  he  says:  — 

"  His  [Dr.  Pusey's]  argument  that  the  rubrical  direction  as  to  the 
reverent  reception  of  the  remainder  of  the  Elements  by  some  of  the 
communicants  '  shows  that  the  Church  of  England  believes  an  abi- 
ding objective  presence  of  the  Body  and  Blood  of  Christ  in  the  Ele- 
ments, apart  from  the  act  of  reception,'  (p.  231),  and  that  the 
direction  as  to  the  covering  of  the  remainder  of  the  consecrated  ele- 
ments with  a  fine  linen  cloth  'contains  the  same  doctrine/  I  leave  to 
be  disposed  of  by  the  reader.  I  confess  to  a  feeling  of  impatience 
under  the  infliction  of  such  apologies  for  arguments." 

But  it  often  happens  that  no  "  feeling  of  impatience/' 
however  strong,  will  get  rid  of  awkward  facts ;  and  such  is 
the  case  here  :  the  Rubric  as  to  the  reverent  reception  of  the 
remains  of  the  Sacrament  exists,  and  needs  to  be  accounted 
for  :  its  meaning  has  already  been  discussed  at  length  in  these 
pages  (See  122 — 152)  :  it  will  be  enough,  therefore,  now  to 
supplement  what  was  there  said,  by  referring  to  a  most  un- 
suspicious witness,  from  whom  I  have  already  had  occasion  to 
quote. 

Mr.  Fisher,  wrongly  assuming  that  the  Rubric  in  the  Ser- 
vice Books  of  Edward  and  Elizabeth" — "and  if  any  of  the 
Bread  and  Wine  remain,  the  Curate  shall  have  it  to  his  own 
use" — refers  to  the  consecrated  Elements,  thus  remarks  upon 
the  change  in  1662  : 

"This  was,  of  course,  much  too  concise  and  simple  to  suit  the  re- 
fined Scholastic  taste  of  theologians  like  Dr.  Gunning  or  Bishop 
Cosin.  Consequently,  as  might  have  been  anticipated,  it  was  in 
1662  very  considerably  enlarged,  and  most  materially  modified  in  its 
dogmatic  import.  It  now  stands  as  follows  : — 

"  *  And  if  any  of  the  Bread  and  Wine  remain  unconsecrated  the 
Curate  shall  have  it  to  his  own  use  :  but  if  any  remain  of  that  which 
was  consecrated,  it  shall  not  be  carried  out  of  the  Church,  but  the 
Priest  and  such  other  of  the  Communicants  as  he  shall  then  call  unto 
him,  shall,  immediately  after  the  Blessing,  reverently  eat  and  drink 
the  same.' 

"  This  change,  it  will  be  observed,  is  in  perfect  keeping  with  those 
already  noticed.  Some  indeed  may  be  disposed — and  not  altogether 
without  reason — to  consider  it  as  one  of  the  most  important  altera- 
tions which  the  Communion  Office  has  ever  undergone  ;  involving 
as  it  does  so  palpable  a  recognition  of  that  mysterious  virtue,  which 


381 

is  supposed,  according  to  the  theory  of  Rome,  to  be  infused  into  the 
elements  by  the  priestly  act  of  Consecration.  It  is  indeed,  in  this 
respect,  all  that  the  most  zealous  adherent  of  the  Tridentine  doctrine 
could  desire.  Such  is  the  mystical  sanctity  of  the  newly  '  conse- 
crated '  bread  and  wine,  that  they  are  not,  we  are  told,  to  be  used, 
even  by  the  Priest  himself,  anywhere  except  within  the  hallowed 
precints  of  the  altar."  * — p.  400. 

But  though  Mr.  Fisher  is  in  error  in  supposing  that  the 
change  in,  or  rather  the  addition  to,  the  Rubric  arose  from 
any  unfitness  in  it  to  "the  refined  Scholastic  taste"  of  which 
he  speaks ;  his  opinion  is  none  the  less  valuable  as  to  the 
meaning  of  the  Rubric  in  its  present  form.  The  old  Rubric 
was  sufficient  for  its  purpose  in  1552,  when,  the  minds  of  the 
Clergy  being  still  thoroughly  imbued  with  the  Missal 
Rubrics,  no  Priest  would  have  been  at  a  loss  how  to  dispose 
of  the  remains  of  the  Consecrated  Bread  and  Wine  :  but  the 


*  This  passage,  and  the  other  quotations  from  Mr.  Fisher,  were  taken  from 
the  1st  Ed.  of  his  Book  :  but  a  2nd  Ed.  having  been  published  in  1860  it  is  due 
to  him  to  notice  any  variation  he  may  have  made  in  his  statements.  The 
passages  cited  at  pp.  170,  284,  331,  and  above,  are  unaltered :  that  at  p.  337  « 
substantially  the  same,  though  fuller,  and  even  more  explicit  (in  2nd  Ed., 
p.  296,  &c.) :  the  one  given  at  p.  262  seems  to  be  omitted,  but  its  purport  is  found 
elsewhere  (2nd  Ed.,  pp.  129,  151,  &c.)  :  the  passage  at  pp.  259-60  looks  as  if  re- 
cast, and  now  ends  thus  (2nd  Ed.,  p.  3(>0) : — "  Of  course  it  is  not  for  us  to  say, 
what  might  have  been  the  decision  of  our  Ecclesiastical  Judges  in  the  case  of 
Mr.  Wilberforce,  had  legal  proceedings  been  actually  instituted  against  him : 
but  it  is  certainly  difficult  to  see  how,  with  this  Rubric  before  them,  [i.e.,  the 
Declaration  on  Kneeling],  they  could  have  come  practically  to  any  conclusion 
condemnatory,  in  a  penal  sense,  of  his  doctrine."  The  other  remaining  quota- 
tion, that  at  p.  171,  "...  he  does  not  seem,"  &c.,  appears  to  be  withdrawn,  and 
the  following  substituted — "It  has  been  ascertained,  as  we  believe  beyond  a 
doubt,  that,  between  the  year  1548  and  the  period  of  the  Second  revision  of  the 
Prayer- Book,  Cranmer's  opinion  respecting  the  corporeal  presence  of  CHRIST  in 
the  Eucharist  underwent  a  very  marked  and  decisive  change.  During  that 
short  interval,  indeed,  he  appears  to  have  abandoned  the  Lutheran  doctrine 
altogether.  Now  observe  the  change  which  the  Communion  Office  underwent, 
at  the  time  of  this  second  revision.  It  was  not  enough,  as  some  might  have 
supposed,  that  the  Rubric  alone  should  be  altered.  There  were,  it  seems,  ex- 
pressions even  in  the  Service  which  might  seem  to  sanction  the  discarded  doc- 
trine. The  Service  accordingly  was  made  to  undergo  a  precisely  corresponding 
process  of  alteration."  (2nd  Ed.,  p.  145).  Now  I  do  not  pretend  to  know  what 
has  caused  this  entire  change,  as  it  seems,  in  Mr.  Fisher's  opinion  on  this  point : 
but,  having  paid  due  attention  to  what  he  has  urged  here  and  elsewhere  in  his 
2nd  Ed.,  I  feel  very  confident  in  maintaining  that  his  second  thoughts  are  not 
the  accurate  ones ;  and  I  cannot  but  think  that  in  this  instance,  as  in  others,  it 
will  be  found  that  the  supposed  old  and  true  maxim  must  be  altered,  and  that  it 
may  yet  appear  that  his  first  and  third  thoughts  will  be  best.  In  support  of 
this  belief  I  must  refer  to  what  has  been  already  said  at  pp.  6,  20-26,  46,  48, 
49,  84,  154-59,  166-70,  174-78,  179-86,  and  276. 


382 

gross  irreverence  with  which  the  Sacrament  had  come  to  be 
treated  before  the  end  of  the  following  Century,  must  have 
furnished  a  most  cogent  reason,  quite  apart  from  any 
"  Scholastic  taste,"  not  only  for  removing  any  uncertainty  (if 
such  existed,  though  it  may  well  be  doubted)  ;  but  also  for 
furnishing  a  direction,  with  regard  to  the  remains  of  the  Con- 
secrated Elements,  of  so  explicit  a  character  that  no  one  could 
possibly  plead  the  old  Rubric  in  excuse  for  treating  them  as 
common  Bread  and  Wine,  and  so  seek  to  cover  negligence  or 
irreverence  in  disposing  of  them.  Indeed,  I  venture  to  think 
that  this  consideration  is  the  true  key  to  the  meaning  of  the 
words,  "it  shall  not  be  carried  out  of  the  Church  :"  it  seems 
to  me  fairly  open  to  discussion,  whether  these  words  were 
designed  absolutely  to  prohibit  reservation  for  the  sick  in 
cases  where  anything  like  a  real  difficulty  (such  as  men- 
tioned at  p.  139)  might  arise  about  Consecrating  at  a  Com- 
munion of  the  Sick  :  the  Revisers  of  1661  were  not  likely  to 
have  been  unmindful  of  the  Rubric  in  Elizabeth's  Latin 
Prayer  Book,  which  permitted  it  (See  p.  89)  ;  and  they  may 
not  have  intended  wholly  to  exclude  its  operation,  though 
probably  deeming  it  best  not  to  encourage  a  habit  of  Reser- 
vation for  ordinary  cases  which  presented  no  difficulty  in  using 
the  Office  provided  for  "  The  Communion  of  the  Sick." 

With  regard  to  the  other  fact — the  direction  to  cover 
"  what  remaineth  of  the  consecrated  elements  .  .  .  with  a  fair 
linen  cloth  " — it  may  suffice,  I  think,  to  quote  the  following 
passage  from  the  late  Professor  Blunt' s  "  Duties  of  a  Parish 
Priest  "3rd  Ed.  p.  339:— 

"  This,  you  will  observe,  is  the  first  mention  that  is  made  of 
covering  the  elements  with  a  cloth,  or  '  corporal,'  as  it  was  called. 
So  that  the  practice  of  thus  veiling  them,  when  originally  placed 
upon  the  Table,  though,  as  it  should  seem,  obtaining  in  the  early 
Greek  Ritual  (See  Lit.  of  S.  Chrysostom,  Neale's  Tetralogia  Litur- 
gica  pp.  63,  64),  is  unathorized  by  our  own,  which  would  appear  to 
consider  them  as  common  bread  and  common  wine  (however  obla- 
tions to  God)  till  after  consecration,  and  therefore  as  not  to  be  treated 
with  any  mysterious  reverence ;  but,  after  consecration,  to  be  no 
longer  common  bread,  ov  Koivo?  apro? ;  and  no  longer  a  common  cup, 
oi>  Kotvov  TroT^iov  (Justin  Martyr  1  Apol.  §.  66);  and  now  therefore 


to  be  screened  frem  the  gaze  of  the  congregation.     So  much  doctrine 
is  there  contained  in  these  Rubrics  when  duly  studied  and  applied.'' 

There  is  another  statement  made  by  Mr.  Goode  (Supp.  p. 
34)  which  needs  to  be  noticed  :  he  says  that  "  the  whole  ob- 
ject of  the  Declaration  is  to  point  out,  that  the  act  of  kneel- 
ing is  not  an  act  of  adoration  to  Christ  as  so  present,"  i.e. 
"as  whole  Christ,  God  and  Man"  (p.  33)  by  "  an  immaterial 
presence  "  (such  as  he  alleges  Dr.  Pusey  to  hold) ;  and  he  quotes 
in  support  of  his  position  First,  the  parenthetical  language  of 
the  Declaration  as  to  our  acknowledgment  by  kneeling  "  of 
the  benefits  of  Christ  therein  given  to  all  worthy  Receivers  ;" 
Next,  the  words  of  the  7th  Canon  of  1640.  But,  with  respect 
to  the  former,  surely  it  may,  at  least,  be  fairly  said  that  Christ 
"  being  therein  given  "  He  is  there  WHEN  given,  and  so  ought 
to  be  adored :  and  that  "  whole  Christ,  God  and  Man "  is 
given,  though  not  after  a  natural  manner,  seems  to  me  to  be 
necessarily  allowed  by  Mr.  Goode  himself ;  for  he  says  : — 

"  .  .  .1  maintain,  that  the  Body  and  Blood  of  Christ  that  we  are 
to  eat  and  drink  in  the  Lords'  Supper,  are  the  true  material  body 
and  blood  of  our  Blessed  Lord,  of  which  He  spake  when  he  said  of 
himself  to  his  disciples  after  his  resurrection, — '  a  spirit  hath  not 
flesh  and  bones,  as  ye  see  me  have.'  But  I  contend  that  this  eating 
and  drinking  are  of  a  spiritual  kind,  the  act  of  the  soul  only ;  but, 
in  the  case  of  the  faithful,  accompanying  the  eating  and  drinking  of 
the  sacred  symbols  by  the  mouth." — Nature  of  Christ's  Presence, 
etc.  p.  82. 

Here,  as  I  understand  him,  Mr.  Goode  contends  for  the 
spiritual  partaking  of  a  material  Thing  :  it  is  difficult,  then, 
to  see  why  he  should  object,  as  he  seems  to  do,  to  the  spiritual 
PRESENCE  and  spiritual  GIVING  of  that  same  material  Thing 
i.e.  of  the  risen  (and  ascended,  for  it  was  the  same)  Christ — 
God  and  Man.  Surely  the  whole  analogy  to  be  drawn  from 
the  Elements  sustains  what  he  appears  to  disallow  :  for  if  the 
Bread  and  Wine  must  be  there,  in  the  Sacrament,  before  they 
can  be  given  to  the  Communicants  to  be  by  them  consumed  ; 
it  follows  that  the  Body  and  Blood  of  Christ  (i.e.  Christ  Him- 
self "whole  Christ,  God  and  Man  ")  must  also  be  there,  "in 
the  Lord's  Supper,"  before  they  can  be  given  to  the  faithful 


384 

to  be  by  them  "  verily  and  indeed  taken  and  received "  in 
order  to  be  "  eaten"  and  drunk  "  after  an  heavenly  and  spiritual 
manner."  (Art.  xxviii.)  Indeed  Mr.  Goode  says  (p.  82)  "I must 
add,  that  as  to  any  spiritual  presence,  our  Lord  may  be  present 
in  the  Supper*  and  quite  as  effectually  present,  though  he  does 
not  enter  into  or  become  annexed  to  the  earthly  elements  of 
bread  and  wine."  Yet  I  cannot  but  think  that,  having  re- 
gard to  the  terms  of  the  Declaration,  Mr.  Goode  thus  raises 
a  difficulty  (if  it  be  a  difficulty)  quite  as  great  as  the  one  he 
opposes  ;  for  precisely  the  same  reason,  viz.  "it  being  against 
the  truth  of  Christ's  natural  Body  to  be  at  one  time  in  more 
places  than  one,"  applies  to  a  "  spiritual  presence  "  of  "  the 
true  material  body  and  blood  of  our  Blessed  Lord  "  "  in  the 
Supper"  as  to  a  "  spiritual  presence  "  of  it  in,  with,  or  under 
the  Elements  :  in  fact  the  Declaration  says  nothing  whatever 
as  to  the  where  of  "  any  spiritual  Presence  "  of  "  Christ's 
natural  Flesh  and  Blood ;"  though  it  does  most  distinctly 
pronounce  how  Christ  is  not  present,  when  it  rejects  "any 
corporal  presence  of  Christ's  natural  Flesh  and  Blood :  FOR 
[i.e.  because]  ....  the  natural  Body  and  Blood  of  our 
Saviour  Christ  are  in  Heaven,  and  not  here." 

But,  as  I  am  most  anxious  not  to  misunderstand  (and  so  to 
misrepresent  unconsciously)  Mr.  Goode's  language,  let  me 
here  take  the  precaution  of  saying  that  it  is  possible  he  may 
have  intended  to  emphasize  the  word  "  benefits  "  and  not  the 
word  "  Christ "  in  his  quotation  from  the  Declaration  upon 
which  I  am  now  commenting :  in  that  case  it  would  be  neces- 
sary to  enquire  what  he  understands  by  the  word  "  benefits  " 
as  there  used — whether  it  is  to  be  taken  in  the  same  sense  as 
in  the  Catechism  or  in  some  other  meaning. 

I  have  not  been  able  to  find  any  passage  in  Mr.  Goode's 
Work  on  the  Eucharist  or  in  his  Supplement  which  will 
clearly  guide  to  his  opinion  on  this  point :  the  only  remarks, 
so  far  as  I  know,  which  bear  upon  it  are  the  following  which 

*  I  have  already  noticed  (See  p.  358)  a  still  stronger  expression  used  by  Mr. 
Goode  as  to  a  possible  kind  of  Presence  "  in  the  Supper." 


385 

he  makes  in  commenting  upon  a  statement  of  the  late  Arch- 
deacon Wilberforce  : — 

" .  .  .  .  His  main  argument  [i.e.  in  "  his  '  Charge,'  pp.  285— 
8."]  is  this,  that  we  are  told  that  '  the  Body  and  Blood  of  Christ  are 
verily  and  indeed  taken  and  received  by  the  faithful  in  the  Lord's 
Supper,'  and  then  afterwards  it  is  stated,  what  the  benefits  are  of 
which  we  become  partakers  by  this  reception ;  showing  he  contends 
that  beyond  the  reception  of  certain  benefits,  there  is,  besides,  the 
reception  of  a  thing  from  which  these  benefits  flow  ;  and  he  reasons 
as  if  this  proved,  that  the  Body  and  Blood  of  Christ  must  be  in  the 
elements. 

"  But  the  conclusion  does  not  follow  from  the  premises.  No  doubt 
there  is  a  reception  by  the  soul  of  the  Body  of  Christ.  And  the 
consequence  of  that  reception  is,  the  enjoyment  of  certain  benefits 
by  the  soul,  namely,  (as  described  in  the  Catechism)  its  being 
strengthened  and  refreshed  by  the  Body  and  Blood  of  Christ,  as  our 
bodies  are  by  the  bread  and  wine.  But  this  does  not  prove  a 
reception  of  the  Body  and  Blood  of  Christ  by  the  mouth  in  con- 
junction with  the  elements 

"  And  the  Catechism,  so  far  from  drawing  this  distinction  between 
receiving  the  body  of  Christ  and  receiving  the  benefits  derivable 
from  it,  remarkably  connects  (I  had  almost  said,  identifies)  the  two. 
For  in  two  previous  answers  it  makes  the  second  part  of  a  sacrament, 
and  the  inward  thing  signified  by  the  outward  element,  to  be,  an 
'  inward  and  spiritual  grace  ; '  not  the  res  sacramenti,  but  the  virtus 
or  gratia  sacramenti." — The  Nature  &c.,  p.  695. 

Now,  though  not  immaterial  in  itself,  it  is  immaterial  to 
me  to  discuss  here  the  remarkable  distinction  drawn  in  the 
Catechism  (and  not  in  this  place  pointed  out  by  Mr.  Goode,) 
between  the  two  Sacraments,  by  the  additional  third  question 
as  to  the  ''benefits"  of  the  "Sacrament  of  the  Lord's 
supper."  It  is  enough  to  observe  that  he  regards  the 
"benefits"  of  the  Eucharist  as  "  the  consequence  of"  the 
soul's  reception  "  of  the  Body  of  Christ :  "  it  seems  to  me 
therefore,  most  probable  that  he  similarly  regards  "  the 
benefits"  named  in  the  Declaration  ;  for,  coupling  the  words 
just  cited  with  his  remarks  as  to  the  nature  of  the  Presence 
quoted  before.  (See  p.  384)  I  cannot  fairly  suppose  him 
to  maintain  so  improbable  an  intention  on  the  part  of  the 
Framers  of  the  Declaration  as  either,  a  precise  identification 
of  "those  benefits"  as  "being"  (in  the  language  of  Bishop 

D  D  D 


386 

Wordsworth,  see  Note,  p.  117)  "the  Sacramental  Body  and 
Blood  of  our  Lord  and  Saviour,  Jesus  Christ;"  or  an 
"  acknowledgment "  of  an  effect  instead  and  to  the  exclusion 
of  a  cause :  for,  while  the  Bishop's  explanation  introduces  a 
new  Body  such  as  Mr.  Goode  appears  to  disavow,  it  seems  too 
unreasonable  to  suppose  that  they  (the  Framers)  could  have 
been  so  inexact  in  the  wording  of  such  an  important  public 
Theological  statement  as  to  lead  us  to  contemplate  primarily 
in  the  act  of  Kneeling  at  Reception  the  subsequent  "  benefits" 
of  the  Gift  of  "  Christ"  then  and  there  bestowed  upon  "  all 
worthy  receivers" — Benefits  which,  however  closely  or 
remotely  following  upon  the  Gift,  must  be  (analogically) 
considered  as  later  than  not  coincident  with  that  Gift. 

Mr.  Goode's  second  reference  in  support  of  his  opinion  as 
to  "the  whole  object  of  the  Declaration"  is  thus  stated  (the 
Italics  are  Mr.  Go  ode's)  : — 

"  And  a  similar  reason  for  such  a  posture  [i.e.  Kneeling]  is  asigned 
in  the  seventh  of  the  Canons  of  1640,  drawn  up  under  the  pre- 
sidency of  Archbishop  Laud,  where  such  a  gesture  '  in  the  celebra- 
tion of  the  Holy  Eucharist '  is  said  to  be  not  *  upon  any  opinion  of 
a  corporal  presence  of  the  body  of  Jesus  Christ  on  the  holy  table,  or 
in  mystical  elements,  but  only  for  the  advancement  of  God's  Majesty, 
and  to  give  him  alone  that  honour  and  glory  that  is  due  unto  him, 
and  no  otherwise.9 " — Sup.  p.  34. 

But,  first  of  all,  it  must  be  said  that  the  Canon  is  not 
treating  at  all  of  that  "  Kneeling"  at  receiving  the  Sacrament 
of  the  Lord's  Supper  with  which  the  Declaration  deals :  it 
refers  entirely  to  another  custom  which  had  much  fallen  into 
disuse  and  was  then  sought  to  be  revived :  this  will  be  best 
seen  by  an  inspection  of  the  entire  final  Clause  of  the  Canon 
which  runs  thus  (the  Italics  are  mine) : — 

"  And  lastly,  Whereas  the  Church  is  the  house  of  God,  dedicated 
to  his  holy  worship,  and  therefore  ought  to  mind  us,  both  of  the 
greatness  and  goodness  of  his  Divine  Majesty,  certain  it  is  that  the 
acknowledgment  thereof,  not  only  inwardly  in  our  hearts,  but 
also  outwardly  with  our  bodies,  must  needs  be  pious  in  itself,  pro- 
fitable unto  us,  and  edifying  unto  others.  We  therefore  think  it 
very  meet  and  behoveful,  and  heartily  commend  it  to  all  good  and 
well-affected  people,  members  of  this  Church,  that  they  be  ready  to 
tender  unto  the  Lord  the  said  acknowledgment,  by  doing  reverence 


387 

and  obeysance,  both  at  their  coming  in,  and  going  out  of  the  said 
Churches,  Chancels  or  Chapels,  according  to  the  most  ancient  custom 
of  the  primitive  Church  *  in  the  purest  times,  and  of  this  Church 
also  for  many  years  of  the  reign  of  Queen  Elizabeth.  The  reviving 
therefore  of  this  ancient  and  laudable  custom,  we  heartily  commend 
to  the  serious  consideration  of  all  good  people,  not  with  any  in- 
tention to  exhibit  any  religious  worship  to  the  Communion-Table, 
the  East,  or  Church,  or  anything  therein  contained  in  so  doing,  or 
to  perform  the  said  gesture,  in  the  celebration  of  the  holy  Eucharist, 
upon  any  opinion  of  a  corporal  presence  of  the  body  of  Jesus  Christ 
on  the  holy  Table,  or  in  mystical  Elements,  but  only  for  the  ad- 
vancement of  God's  Majesty,  and  to  give  him  alone  that  honour 
and  glory  that  is  due  unto  him,  and  no  otherwise  ;  and  in  the  prac- 
tise or  omission  of  this  Rite,  we  desire  that  the  Rule  of  Charity 
prescribed  by  the  Apostle,  may  be  observed,  which  is,  that  they 
which  use  this  Rite,  despise  not  them  who  use  it  not ;  and  that 
they  who  use  it  not,  condemn  not  those  that  use  it." 

Now  it  is  clear,  from  the  language  of  the  Canon,  that  "  the 
said  gesture  "  recommended  to  be  used  "  in  the  celebration  of 
the  Holy  Eucharist"  was  precisely  that  "  doing  reverence  and 
obeysance"  which  was  counselled  to  be  performed  at  "coming 
in  and  going  out"  of  Church  :  what  that  gesture  was  may  be 
pretty  certainly  inferredf  from  the  direction  of  the  52nd  of 
Elizabeth's  Injunctions  of  1559  as  to  bowing  at  the  Name  of 
Jesus  in  Church  ;  it  is  there  ordered — 

"  rfiat  due  reverence  be  made  of  all  persons  young  and  old,  with 
lowness  of  courtesie,  and  uncovering  of  heads  of  the  menkind,  as 
thereunto  doth  necessarily  belong,  and  heretofore  hath  been  accus- 
tomed." 

I  have  no  doubt  that  the  traditional  practice  observed  in 
some  Cathedrals  and  Parish  Churches,  especially  Country 
Churches,  points  to  an  identity  of  gesture  between  the  Canon 
and  the  Injunction.  But,  as  I  have  before  intimated,  this 
has  no  connexion  with  kneeling  at  receiving :  that  was  ex- 
pressly required  by  the  Rubric  of  the  Prayer  Book  in  use 

*  "  Nothing  more  frequent  in  the  writings  of  the  ancient  fathers  than 
adoration  towards  the  Ecist,  which  drew  the  primitive  Christians  into  some 
suspicion  of  being  worshippers  of  the  sun." — Heylyn's  Cyprianus  Anglicus, 
Introduction,  p.  17.  Quoted  in  "  Hierurgia  Anglicana."  p.  50. 

f  For  proofs  that  this  "  gesture  "  was  boiving  and  that  it  still  prevailed  in 
many  places  before  the  passing  of  the  Canon  in  1640,  see  "  Hierurgia  Anglicana" 
pp.  50—58. 


388 

both  in  Elizabeth's  days  and  in  Archbishop  Laud's  time  ;  it 
was  enforced  by  the,  still  unrepealed,  27th  Canon  of  1603 
which  ordered  that  "  No  Minister,  when  he  celebrateth  the 
Communion,  shall  wittingly  administer  the  same  to  any  but 
to  such  as  kneel,  under  pain  of  suspension:"  and,  moreover, 
the  circumstance — that  the  Canon  of  1640  makes  no  preten- 
sion of  dispensing  with  these  then  and  now  existing  Laws  yet 
allows  a  liberty  of  action  with  respect  to  the  gesture  it  re- 
commends— seems  to  me  an  unanswerable  argument  that  the 
gesture  of  the  Canon  and  the  gesture  of  the  Declaration  are 
not  identical. 

Yet  if  they  were,  all  that  can  be  argued  from  the  Canon 
is,  I  think,  that  it  is  more  explicit  than  the  Declaration  ; 
inasmuch  as  it  denies  "  a  corporal  presence  of  the  body  of 
Jesus  Christ  on  the  Holy  Table,  or  in  mystical  Elements  "  ; 
but  it  is  equally  implicit  in  not  excluding  a  spiritual  Presence 
Can  anything  be  cited  from  Archbishop  Laud,  "  under " 
whose  "  presidency "  (as  Mr.  Goode  says,)  the  Canon  was 
made,  to  indicate  the  reverse  of  this  ?  I  think  not.  On  the 
contrary,  how  he  would  have  defended  the  direction  of  the 
Canon,  may  be  pretty  certainly  inferred  from  what  he  said 
only  three  years  before,  and  which  I  suppose  no  one  will 
think  him  likely  to  have  unsaid  in  1640 ;  his  words  (which  I 
only  met  with  some  time  after  writing  the  above)  are  as 
follows : — 

"  One  thing  sticks  much  in  their  stomachs,  and  they  call  it  an 
innovation  too;  and  that  is,  bowing,  or  doing  reverence  at  our  first 
coming  into  the  Church,  or  at  our  nearer  approaches  to  the  Holy 
Table,  or  the  Altar,  (call  it  whether  you  will),  in  which  they  will 
needs  have  it  that  we  worship  the  Holy  Table,  or  GOD  knows  what. 

"To  this  I  answer,  first,  that  God  forbid  we  should  worship  any 
thing  but  God  Himself.  Secondly,  that  if  to  worship  God  when  we 
enter  into  His  house,  or  approach  His  altar,  be  an  innovation,  'tis  a 
very  old  one.  For  Moses  did  reverence  at  the  very  door  of  the 
Tabernacle.  (Numb.  xx.  6.)  Hezekiah,  and  all  that  were  present 
with  him,  when  they  had  made  an  end  of  offering,  bowed  and  wor- 
shipped. (2  Chron.  xxix.  29.)  David  calls  the  people  to  it  with  a 
Venite,  0  come  let  us  worship  and  fall  down,  and  kneel  before  the 
Lord  our  maker,  (Ps.  xcv.  6):  and  in  all  these  places  (I  pray  mark 
it)  'tis  bodily  worship.  Nor  can  they  say  this  was  Judaical  worship, 


389 

and  now  not  to  be  imitated.  For  long  before  Judaism  began, 
Bethel,  the  House  of  God,  was  a  place  of  reverence,  (Gen.  xxviii. 
17):  therefore,  certainly  of  and  to  God.  And  after  Judaical  worship 
ended,  Venite  adoremus,  as  far  upwards  as  there  is  any  track  of  a 
Liturgy,  was  the  Introitus  of  the  priest  all  the  Latin  Church  over. 
And  in  the  daily  Prayer  of  the  Church  of  England  this  was  retained 
at  the  Reformation  :  and  that  psalm  in  which  is  Venite  adoremus,  is 
commanded  to  begin  the  morning  service  of  every  day.  And  for 
ought  I  know,  the  priest  may  as  well  leave  out  the  venite  as  the 
adoremus,  the  calling  the  people  to  their  duty,  as  the  duty  itself, 
when  they  are  come.  Therefore,  even  according  to  the  Service- 
book  of  the  Church  of  England,  the  priest  and  the  people  both  are 
called  upon  for  external  and  bodily  reverence  and  worship  of  God. 
Therefore  they  which  do  it  do  not  innovate  ....  For  my  own 
part  I  take  myself  bound  to  worship  with  body,  as  well  as  in  soul, 

whenever  I  come  where  God  is  worshipped 

"  And  you,  my  honourable  Lords  of  the  Garter,  in  your  great 
solemnities  you  do  your  reverence,  and  to  Almighty  God  I  doubt 
not;  but  yet  it  is  versus  Altar  e,  towards  His  altar,  as  the  greatest 
place  of  God's  residence  upon  Earth — I  say  the  greatest,  yea,  greater 
than  the  pulpit ;  for  there  it  is  Hoc  est  Corpus  Meum,  this  is  my 
Body  ;  but  in  the  pulpit  'tis  at  most  but  Hoc  est  verbuni  Meum,  this 
is  My  word.  And  a  greater  reverence,  no  doubt,  is  due  to  the 
Body  than  to  the  word  of  our  Lord ;  and  so,  in  relation,  answer- 
ably  to  the  Throne,  where  His  Body  is  usually  present,  than  to  the 
seat  where  His  word  useth  to  be  proclaimed.  And  God  hold  it  there  at 
His  word  ;  for,  as  too  many  men  use  the  matter,  'tis  Hoc  est  verbum 
Diaboli,  this  is  the  word  of  the  devil,  in  too  many  places :  witness 
sedition  and  the  like  to  it ; — and  this  reverence  ye  do  when  ye  enter 
the  Chapel,  and  when  you  approach  nearer  to  offer.  And  this  is  no 
innovation,  for  you  are  bound  to  it  by  your  order,  and  that's  not  new. 
And  idolatry  it  is  not,  to  worship  God  towards  His  Holy  Table  :  for 
if  it  had  been  idolatry,  I  presume  Queen  Elizabeth  and  King  James 
would  not  have  practised  it,  no,  not  in  those  solemnities.  And  being 
not  idolatry,  but  true  Divine  worship,  you  will,  I  hope,  give  a  poor 
priest  leave  to  worship  God  as  yourselves  do  :  for  if  it  be  God's 
worship,  I  ought  to  do  it  as  well  as  you  ;  and  if  it  be  idolatry,  you 
ought  not  to  do  it  more  than  I.  I  say  again,  I  hope  a  poor  priest 
may  worship  God  with  as  lowly  a  reverence  as  you  do,  since  you  are 
bound  by  your  order  and  by  your  oath,  according  to  a  Constitution 
of  Hen.  V.  (as  appears  In  Libro  Nigro  Windasoriensi,  p.  65),  to 
give  due  honour  and  reverence  Domino  Deo  et  altari  Ejus,  in  modum 
virorum  Ecclesiasticorum  ;  that  is  to  the  Lord  your  God,  and  to  His 
Altar,  (for  there  is  a  reverence  due  to  that  too,  though  such  as  comes 
far  short  of  Divine  worship)  ;  and  this  is  the  manner,  as  ecclesiasti- 
cal persons  both  worship  and  do  reverence Now  if  you  will 

turn  this  off,  and  say  it  was  the  superstition    of  that  age  so  to  do, 


390 

Bishop  Jewel  will  come  in  to  help  me  there :  for  where  Harding 
names  divers  ceremonies  and  particularly  bowing  themselves  and 
adoring  at  the  Sacrament — I  say  adoring  at  the  Sacrament,  not 
adoring  the  Sacrament ;  there  Bishop  Jewel  (that  learned,  painful, 
and  reverend  prelate)  approves  all,  both  the  kneeling  and  the  bowing, 
and  the  standing  up  at  the  Gospel  (which,  as  ancient  as  it  is  in  the 
Church,  and  a  common  custom,  is  yet  fondly  made  another  of  their 
innovations).*  And  further,  the  Bishop  adds,  '  That  they  are  all 
commendable  gestures  and  tokens  of  devotion,  so  long  as  the  people 
understand  what  they  mean  and  apply  them  unto  God.'  Now  with 
us  the  people  did  ever  understand  them  fully  and  apply  them  to  God, 
and  to  none  but  God,  till  these  factious  spirits  and  their  like,  to  the 
great  disservice  of  God  and  His  Church,  went  about  to  persuade 
them  that  they  are  superstitious  if  not  idolatrous  gestures  ;  as  they 
value  everything  else  to  be  where  God  is  not  served  slovenly." — 
Speech  in  the  Star  Chamber  June  14,  1637— pp.  43,  52.  Cited  in 
Hierugia  Anglicana,  pp.  55 — 6. 

This,  then,  may  be  regarded  with  moral  (I  can  scarcely 
doubt  with  absolute)  certainty  as  Abp.  Laud's  explanation  of 
that  "  bowing  "  "  gesture  "  of  the  Canon  which  Mr.  Goode 
inaccurately  cites  in  proof — that  "  Kneeling  is  not  an  act  of 
adoration  to  Christ  ["  whole  Christ,  God  and  man  "]  as  so 
present"  i.e.  in,  what  he  calls,  "an  immaterial"  manner.  What 
the  Abp.  thought  of  kneeling  "  at  the  Sacrament "  is  abun- 
dantly clear  from  this  same  passage :  why  he  thought  adora- 
fo'0raz=kneeling  due  then,  is  plain  from  what  he  says  of  the 
"  Altar  "  where  It  is  celebrated  and  of  the  "  Body  "  which 
"  is  usually  present"  there.  It  will  tend  to  complete  his 
view  of  the  point  if  his  opinion  of  Christ's  Presence  in  that 
Sacrament  is  here  added ;  and  this  may  be  satisfactorily 
gathered  from  the  following  passages  in  his  celebrated  con- 
troversy with  Fisher  the  Jesuit.  The  Italics  &c.  are  mine. 
Thus  he  says  : — 

"Thirdly,  A.C.  [i.e.  Fisher]  doth  extremely  ill  to  join  those  cases 
of  the  Donatists  for  baptism  and  the  protestants  for  the  Eucharist 
together,  as  he  doth.  For  this  proposition  in  the  first,  concerning 
the  Donatists,  leads  a  man  (as  is  confessed  by  himself)  into  known 
and  damnable  schism  and  heresy  ;  but,  by  A.  C's.  good  leave,  the 
latter,  concerning  the  protestants  and  the  Eucharist,  nothing  so. 

"  *  Bishep  Jewell's  Reply  to  Harding's  Answer,  Art.  3,  Div.  29." 


For  I  hope  A.  C.  dare  not  say,  that  to  believe  the  true,  *SUb- 
Stautial  presence  of  Christ  is  either  known  or  damnable  schism  or 
heresy.  Now  as  many  and  as  learuedf  protestants  believe  and  main- 
tain this,  or  do  believe  the  possibility  of  salvation  (as  before  is 
limited)  in  the  Roman  Church  :  therefore  they,  in  that,  not  guilty 
of  either  known  or  damnable  schism  or  heresy,  though  the  Donatists 
were  of  both. 

"  Fourthly,  whereas  he  imposes  upon  the  protestants  *  the  denial 
or  doubting  of  the  true  and  real  presence  of  Christ  in  the  Eucharist,' 
he  is  a  great  deal  more  bold  than  true  in  that  also  ;  for  understand 
them  aright,  and  they  certainly  neither  deny  nor  doubt  it.  For  as 
for  the  Lutherans,  as  they  are  commonly  called,  their  very  opinion 
of  consubstantiation  makes  it  known  to  the  world,  that  they  neither 
deny  nor  doubt  of  His  true  and  real  presence  there ;  and  they  are 
protestants.  And  for  the  Calvinists,  if  they  might  be  rightly  under- 
stood, they  also  maintain  a  IHOSt  true  and  real  presence,  though 
they  cannot  permit  their  judgment  to  be  transubstantiated  ;  and 
they  are  protestants  too.  And  this  is  so  known  a  truth  that  J  Bel- 
larmine  confesses  it  ;  for  he  saith,  '  Protestants  do  often  grant  that 
the  true  and  real  body  of  Christ  is  in  the  Eucharist."  But  he  adds, 
'  That  they  never  say  (so  far  as  he  hath  read)  that  it  is  there  truly 
and  really,  unless  they  speak  of  the  supper  which  shall  be  in  heaven.' 
Well ;  first,  if  they  grant  that  the  true  and  real  body  of  Christ  is  in 
that  blessed  sacrament,  (as  Bellarmine  confesses  they  do,  and  it  is 
most  true,)  then  A.  C.  is  false,  who  charges  all  the  protestants  with 
denial  or  doubtfulness  in  this  point.  And  secondly,  Bellarmine 
himself  also  shews  his  ignorance  or  his  malice ;  ignorance,  if  he 
knew  it  not,  malice,  if  he  would  not  know  it.  For  the  Calvinists,  at 
least  they  which  follow  Calvin  himself,  do  not  only  believe  that  the 
true  and  real  body  of  Christ  is  received  in  the  Eucharist,  but  that 
it  is  there,  and  that  we  partake  of  it  vere  et  realiter,  which  are 
§  Calvin's  own  words;  and  yet  Bellarmine  boldly  affirms  that  to  his 

reading  '  no  one  protestant  did  ever  affirm  it.' Nor  can 

that  place  by  any  art  be  shifted,  or  by  any  violence  wrested  from 
Calvin's  true  meaning  of  the  presence  of  Christ  in  and  at  the  blessed 

*  "  Coeterum  his  absurditatibus  sublatis,  quicquid  ad  exprimendam  veram 
substantialemque  corporis  a  sunguinis  Domini  communicationem,  quae  sub 
sacris  coense  symbolis,  fidelibus  exhibetur,  facere  potest,  libenter  recipio.  Calv. 
Inst.  lib.  iv.  c.  17.  §.  19. — In  coense  mysterio  per  symbola  panis  et  vini  Christus 
vere  nobis  exhibetur,  &c.  Et  nos  participes  substantiae  ems  facti  sumus. 
Ibid.  §.  11." 

f  "  Sect.  35.  numb.  III." 

|  "  Bellarm  de  Euchar.  lib.  i.  c.  2.  $.  Quinto  dicit.  Sacramentarii  ssepedicunt 
reale  corpus  Christi  in  ccena  adesse,  sed  realiter  adesse  nunquam  dicunt,  quod 
legerim,  nisi  forte  loquuntur  de  coena  quse  fit  in  coelo,  &c. 

"  And  tbat  he  means  to  brand  protestants  under  the  name  of  sacramentarii  is 
plain.  For  he  says  the  council  of  Trent  opposed  this  word  realiter,  Jigmento 
Calvinistico,  to  the  Calvinistical  figment.  Ibid." 

§  "  Calv.  in  1  Cor.  x.  3.  vere,  &c.  Et  in  1  Cor.  xi.  24.  realiter.  Vide  supra 
num.  III." 


392 

Sacrament  of  the  Eucharist,  to  any  supper  in  heaven  whatsoever.. 

And  for  the  Church  of  England,  nothing  is  more  plain 

than  that  it  believes  and  teaches  the  true  and  real  presence  of  Christ 
in  the  *  Eucharist,  unless  A.  C.  can  make  a  body  no  body,  and  blood 
no  blood,  (as  perhaps  he  can  do  by  transubstantiation)  as  well  as 
bread  no  bread,  and  wine  no  wine  :  and  the  Church  of  England  is 
protestant  too.  So  protestants  of  all  sorts  maintain  a  true  and  real 
presence  of  Christ  in  the  Eucharist;  and  then,  where  is  any  known 
or  damnable  heresy  here  ?  As  for  the  learned  of  those  zealous  men 
that  died  in  this  cause  in  queen's  Mary's  days,  they  denied  not  the 
real  presence  simply  taken,  but  as  their  opposites  forced  transub- 
stantiation upon  them,  as  if  that  and  the  real  presence  had  been  all 
one.  Whereas  all  the  ancient  Christians  ever  believed  the  one,  and 
none  but  modern  and  superstitious  Christians  believe  the  other  .... 
Now  that  the  learned  protestants  in  queen  Mary's  days  did  not  deny, 
nay,  did  maintain  the  real  presence,  will  manifestly  appear.  For 
when  the  commissioners  obtruded  to  Jo.  Frith  the  presence  of  Christ's 
natural  body  in  the  Sacrament,  and  that  without  all  figure  or  simi- 
litude, Jo.  Frith  acknowledges,"^  '  That  the  inward  man  doth  as  verily 
receive  Christ's  body  as  the  outward  man  receives  the  sacrament 
with  his  mouth.'  And  he  adds,J  '  That  neither  side  ought  to  make 
it  a  necessary  article  of  faith,  but  leave  it  indifferent.'  Nay,  Abp. 
Cranmer  comes  more  plainly  and  more  home  to  it  than  Frith.  'For 
if  you  understand,'  saith  he,§  'by  this  word  really,  reipsa;  that  is 
in  very  deed  and  effectually  ;  so  Christ,  by  the  grace  and  efficacy 
of  His  passion,  is  indeed  and  truly  present,  &c.  But  if  by  this 

word  really  you  understand  ||corporaliter,  1f  corporally  in  His 

*  "  *  The  Body  of  Christ  is  given,  taken,  and  eaten  in  the  supper  (of  the  Lord) 
only  after  an  heavenly  and  spiritual  manner.  And  the  means  whereby  the  body 
of  Christ  is  received  and  eaten  is  faith.'  Ecel.  Ang,  Art.  xxviii.  So  here  is 
the  manner  of  transubstantiation  denied,  but  the  body  of  Christ  twice  affirmed. 
And  in  the  prayer  before  consecration  thus  :  '  Grant  us,  gracious  Lord,  so  to  eat 
the  Flesh  of  Thy  dear  Son  Jesus  Christ,  and  to  drink  His  blood '  &c.— And 
again  in  the  Second  Prayer  or  Thanksgiving  after  Consecration,  thus :  *  We  give 
Thee  thanks,  for  that  Thou  dost  vouchsafe  to  feed  us,  which  have  duly  received 
these  holy  mysteries,  with  the  spiritual  food  of  the  most  precious  Body  and 
Blood,  of  Thy  Son  our  Saviour  Jesus  Christ '  &c." 

f  "Jo.  Fox.     Martyrolog.  torn.  ii.  London,  1597,  p.  943." 
J  "  Fox,  ibid."  §  "  Cranmer  apud  Fox,  ibid.  p.  1301." 

II  "  I  say  corporaliter,  corporally  ;  for  so  Bellarmine  hath  it  expressly  :  Quod 
autem  corporaliter  et  proprie  sumatur  sanguis  et  caro,  &c.,  probari  potest  omnibus 
argumentis,  &c.  Bellarm.  de  Eucharist,  lib.  i.  c.  12.  §.  Sed.  tota.  And  I  must 
be  bold  to  tell  you  more  than  that  this  is  the  doctrine  of  the  Church  of  Rome  ; 
for  I  must  tell  you  too,  that  Bellarmine  here  contradicts  himself:  for  he  that 
tells  us  here,  that  it  can  be  proved  by  many  arguments  that  we  receive  the  flesh 
and  the  blood  of  Christ  in  the  Eucharist  corporaliter,  said  as  expressly  before, 
(had  he  remembered  it,)  that  though  Christ  be  in  this  blessed  sacrament  vere  et 
realiter,  yet  (saith  he)  non  dicemus  corporaliter,  i.e.  eo  modo  quo  sua  natura 
existunt  corpora,  &c.  Bellarm.  de  Eucharist  lib.  i.  c.  2.  §.  Tertia  regula.  So 
Bellarmine  here  is  a  notorious  contradiction :  or  else  it  will  follow  plainly  out  of 
him,  that  Christ  in  the  sacrament  is  existent  one  way  and  received  another, 

which  is  a  gross  absurdity " 

IT  This  expression,  "  corporally,"  should  be  especially  noticed  by  those  who 


393 

natural  and  organical  body,  under  the  forms  of  bread  and  wine,  it 
is  contrary  to  the  holy  word  of  God."  *  And  so  likewise  bishop 
Ridley.  Nay,  bishop  Ridley  adds  yet  further,  and  speaks  so  fully 
to  this  point,  as  I  think  no  man  can  add  to  his  expression  :  and  it  is 
well  if  some  protestants  except  not  against  it.  *  Both  you  and  I,' 
saith  he,f  '  agree  in  this  ;  that  in  the  Sacrament  is  the  very  true 
and  natural  body  and  blood  of  Christ,  even  that  which  ascended 
into  heaven,  which  sits  on  the  right  hand  of  God  the  Father,  which 
shall  come  from  thence  to  judge  the  quick  and  the  dead  :  only  we 
differ  in  modo,  in  the  way  and  manner  of  being,  We  confess  all  Olie 
tiling*  to  be  in  the  Sacrament,  and  dissent  in  the  manner  of  being 
there.  I  confess  Christ's  natural  body  to  be  in  the  Sacrament  by 
Spirit  and  grace,  &c.  You  make  a  gTOSSCr  kind  of  being,  inclos- 
ing a  natural  body  under  the  shape  and  form  of  bread  and  wine.' 
So  far  and  more,  bishop  Ridley.  AndJ  Archbishop  Cranmer  con- 
fesses that  he  was  indeed  of  another  opinion,  and  inclining  to  that  of 
Zuinglius,  till  bishop  Ridley  convinced  his  judgment  and  settled  him 
in  this  point . . . ." — Laud.  v.  Fisher.  Card  well's  Ed.,  Oxford,  1839, 
pp.  245-49. 

III.  I  have  now  produced  fully,  though  not,  I  hope,  at 
greater  length  than  was  needed,  such  additional  Authorities 
and  Arguments  as  seem  to  me  fairly  to  support  the  Opinions 
maintained  in  the  Letter ;  it  will  be  well,  however,  to  com- 
plete or  explain,  so  far  as  I  can,  any  other  statements  which 
were  unavoidably  left  imperfect. 

Thus,  at  p.  65,  I  alluded  to  a  statement  of  Strype's,  which 
I  was  then  unable  to  find,  touching  a  Puritan  proposal,  in 
Elizabeth's  reign,  of  prostration  at  the  Holy  Communion  :  I 
have  now  recovered  the  passage,  which  is  as  follows  : — 

"Another  whose  name  was  Snagg,  entered  into  discourse  of  some 
of  the  Articles,  which  Strickland  had  laid  down  before.  Whereof 

find  a  great  difficulty  in  those  words  of  the  Declaration  "  the  natural  Body  and 
Blood  of  our  Saviour  Christ  are  in  Heaven,  and  not  here  "  :  it  is  often  argued 
by  such — that  these  words  (I)  either  deny  any  real  presence  of  Christ's  Body  in 
the  Eucharist  (2)  or  affirm  Him  to  have  two  bodies:  but,  as  there  can  be  no 
reasonable  doubt  that  Cranmer  is  responsible  for  the  terms  of  the  original  Decla- 
ration so,  the  Archbishop's  language  in  the  above  quotation  must,  in  all  fairness, 
be  taken  as  their  true  exponent :  consequently  when  Christ's  "natural  Body  and 
JHood"  are  said  to  be  "not  here,"  it  must  be  understood  that  they  are  not  here 
" corporally"  i.e.  naturaily=organically. 

*  See  also  the  passage  as  given  above  p.  46. 

f  "  Apud  Fox,  ibid.  p.  1598." — See  also  the  passage  as  given  above,  p.  61. 

t  "Apud  Fox,  ibid.  p.  1703." 

E  E   E 


394 

one  was,  not  to  kneel  at  the  receiving  of  the  holy  sacrament  ;  but 
to  lie  prostrate  (to  shew  the  old  superstition)  or  to  sit,  every  man  at 
his  own  liberty.  And  the  directions  were  thought  fit  to  be  left  out 
of  the  book  [of  the  Office  of  Communion]  for  that  posture.  Which 
should  be  a  law  ;  and  every  man  left  to  do  according  to  his  con- 
science."— Strype  Ann.  II.,  p.  93. 

It  is  quite  in  place  here  to  commend  that  proposal  to  the 
attention  of  devout  persons  amongst  ourselves,  whose  vivid 
belief  of  Christ's  Presence  in  the  Sacrament  of  the  Altar  has 
drawn  them  into  acts  of  prostration  and  other  supposed  reve- 
rential postures,  which  are  a  departure,  not  only  from  the 
established  practice  (which  with  us  might  have  become  very 
lax),  but  from  the  recognized  rule  of  Western  Christendom : 
that  rule,  which  is  even  more  accurately  defined  in  the  Latin 
Communion  than  in  the  Church  of  England,  makes  KNEEL- 
ING the  external  expression  of  the  honour  due  to  Christ  in 
the  Sacrament :  and  it  is  plain  from  the  Puritan  proposition, 
which  described  it  as  "  the  old  superstition,"  that  those  reli- 
gionists accounted  it  a  distinct  mark  of  Adoration.  Variations 
in  the  mode  of  Kneeling  were,  of  course,  meant  to  be 
allowed  ;  if  for  no  other  reason,  at  least,  because  it  would  be 
no  less  impossible  than  unnatural  to  prescribe  any  uniform 
angle  which  the  worshipper's  body  must  present  when  in 
that  position ;  but,  in  appointing  a  definite  posture  whereby 
to  manifest  a  thankful  allegiance  to  the  Heavenly  King, 
clearly  all  self-chosen  ways  of  doing  Him  homage  were  as 
much  designed  to  be  excluded,  as  are  marked  departures 
from  that  manner  of  approaching  an  earthly  Monarch  which 
the  forms  of  his  Court  provide.  Such  gestures,  while  re- 
garded as  pardonable  extravagancies  resulting  either  from 
ignorance  or  from  good  intentions,  are  not  accepted  by  a 
temporal  Sovereign  as  tokens  of  any  deeper  loyalty  than  is 
felt  by  those  who  conform  to  the  rules  of  his  Presence 
Chamber :  still  less  may  it  be  presumed  that  He,  who  fully 
knows  and  entirely  accepts  the  hidden  homage  of  the  devoutest 
heart,  regards  more  favourably  any  self-appointed  tokens  of 
it,  however  lowly  and  reverend  they  are  designed  to  be,  than 


395 

He  does  that  conformity  to  the  Prescriptions  or  Usages  of 
His  Church,  which  is  so  real  an  evidence  of  the  humble  and 
obedient  will. 

This  device  of  the  Puritans'  to  adopt  any  other  posture 
than  that  of  Kneeling,  in  order  to  shew  ''the  old  super- 
stition "  which  they  considered  Kneeling  to  involve,  implies  a 
then  continued  adherence  to  that  "  superstition,"  i.e.,  to  that 
Adoration  of  Christ  in  the  Eucharist,  which  Mr.  Goode 
denies  the  Church  of  England  to  have  allowed  at  that  time, 
or  to  permit  now.  This  bears  upon  a  statement  of  his 
(Supp.  p.  32)  when  commenting  upon  Dr.  Pusey's  remark 
that  those  words  of  Art.  28 — "  '  the  Sacrament  was  not  by 
Christ's  ordinance  reserved,  carried  about,  lifted  up,  or  wor- 
shipped '  .  .  .  .  By  no  honest  interpretation  can  .  .  be  ex- 
tended to  a  worship,  not  of  the  Sacrament)  but  of  Christ 
present  there;"  for  Mr.  Goode  says: — 

"  Now,  if  Christ  is  present  in  an  adorable  form  inside  the  bread, 
so  that  the  two  form  (call  the  union  sacramental,  or  what  you  will) 
one  whole,  that  one  whole  is  a  legitimate  object  of  worship,  just  as 
Jesus  Christ  was  a  proper  object  of  worship.  We  ought  to  bow 
down  to  that  which  lies  upon  the  Communion  table  as  the  sacrament, 
because,  according  to  Dr.  Pusey,  Christ  forms  a  part  of  it.  ...  ." 

It  is  certain,  however,  that  two  at  least  of  the  Reformers, 
who  ought  to  have  weight  with  Mr.  Goode,  would  disagree 
with  him  here,  for  they  make  just  the  distinction  which  he 
ignores.  First,  Dr.  Redman  in  1551  (See  p.  29)  says — 
"  That  nothing  which  is  seen  in  the  Sacrament,  or  perceived 
with  any  outward  sense,  is  to  be  worshipped,"  i.e.,  with  the 
honour  due  to  God — words  which  surely  imply  that  What  is 
not  thus  cognizable  by  the  Senses  is  to  be  so  worshipped  : 
next,  Bishop  Ridley  in  1555  (See  p.  58),  when  arguing 
against  Glyn  the  Romanist,  used  these  memorable  words — 
"  We  adore  and  worship  Christ  in  the  Eucharist.  And  if  you 
mean  the  external  Sacrament ;  I  say,  that  also  is  to  be  wor- 
shipped as  a  Sacrament"  Perhaps  Mr.  Goode  might  say 
that  this  was  a  distinction  well  enough  to  be  made  by  a 
Theologian  like  Ridley,  bat  that  it  is  incapable  of  being 


396 

appreciated  by  the  popular  mind.  This,  however,  was  just 
one  of  those  very  questions  involving  popular  acts  on  which 
the  Bishop  would  be  especially  careful  not  to  propound  an 
unpractical  theory.  Are  the  mass  of  people,  however,  so 
inclined  to  a  practical  Eutychianism  as  Mr.  Goode's  argument 
seems  to  imply  ?  I  think  not :  though,  no  doubt,  the 
Apostle's  words  are  not  inapplicable  in  this  case  too — 
"  There  must  be  also  heresies  among  you,  that  they  which 
are  approved  may  be  made  perfect."  (1  Cor.  xi.  19.)  For,  if 
we  come  to  consider  it,  people  do  I  suppose  almost  uni- 
versally, by  a  sort  of  natural  or  religious  instinct  which 
recognizes  co-existence,  separate  in  their  own  minds  what,  to 
the  moral  or  physical  sense,  appears  to  be  a  commingling. 
It  is  so,  surely,  when  men  look  upon,  honour,  or  dishonour 
their  fellow  men ;  they  do  mentally  separate  soul  and  body, 
no  matter  whether  it  be  done  consciously  or  unconsciously. 
The  like  was  the  case  with  those  who,  having  learned  the 
truth  of  Christ's  Nature,  worshipped  the  God-Man  when  He 
was  upon  Earth — is  their  condition  who,  being  similarly 
informed,  worship  Him  now  that  He  sits  upon  His  Heavenly 
Throne :  they  did  and  we  do — even  the  young  or  the 
uneducated,  no  less  than  the  old  or  the  wise — with  no  great 
difficulty  distinguish  between  His  "  unity  of  Person "  and 
any  "  confusion  of  substance.''  A  kindred  habit  clings  to  us 
in  viewing  a  solid  body  heated  to  incandesence,  or  in  touch- 
ing one  whose  temperature  is  not  visible.  Precisely  so,  it 
seems  to  me,  is  the  separation  we  mentally  make  between  the 
Res  Sacramenti  which  Faith  alone  perceives,  and  the  Sacra- 
mentum  which  Sight  beholds ;  though  at  the  same  time  we 
no  less  vividly  recognize  their  Sacramental  Union. 

It  may  be  that  Mr.  Goode's  proposition,  which  has  led  to 
these  remarks,  was  not  unconnected  in  his  mind  with  an 
assertion  he,  elsewhere,  makes  in  the  following  passage  : — 

"  Of  the  two,  I  must  confess  that  I  had  rather  have  to  defend  the 
Romish  doctrine  than  that  of  Dr.  Pusey  and  Archdeacon  Denison  ; 
for  when  we  read  the  words, '  This  is  my  Body,'  it  seems  a  necessary 
conclusion  that  they  must  mean  one  of  these  two  things, — either, 
*  This  is  a  figure  of — represents — my  Body,'  or,  '  This  is  really  and 


397 

substantially  my  Body.'  But  if  the  doctrine  of  Dr.  Pusey  and 
Archdeacon  Denison  is  the  true  one,  they  must  be  equivalent  to 
saying,  *  This  is  bread  and  my  Body  together.'  Now  certainly  a 
compound  of  two  essentially  different  things  cannot  be  truly  or  pro- 
perly described  by  a  name  that  belongs  only  to  one  of  them." — 
Work  on  the  Eucharist,  p.  58. 

To  this  last  sentence  it  is  that  I  refer  as  apparently  raising 
a  difficulty  about  Sacramental  Union,  which  seems  to  me  to 
be  met  at  the  outset  by  two  of  perhaps  the  best  remembered 
and  most  commonly  quoted  texts  of  Holy  Scripture :  thus 
(Gen.  ii.  7)  we  read  "  man  became  a  living  soul ;"  and  again 
(Ezekiel  xviii.  4)  "  Behold,  all  souls  are  mine."  It  needs  no 
argument  surely  to  prove  that  in  both  these  places  "  a  com- 
pound "  —  man  —  consisting  "  of  two  essentially  different 
things  " — soul  and  body — is  both  "  truly  "  and  "  properly 
described  by  a  name  " — soul — "  that  belongs  only  to  one  of 
them."  So  then,  if  He  who  "  formed  man  of  the  dust  of  the 
ground,"  when  He  had  "breathed  into  his  nostrils  the  breath 
of  life  "  called  him  by  a  name  which  no  one  supposes  to  have 
implied  any  change  of  his  earthly  substance  into  the  Divine 
Afflatus,  though  the  two  formed  "  one  whole "  (to  use 
Mr.  Goode's  term) :  why  may  not  Bread,  the  product  of  a 
like  Divinely  formed  earthy  matter,  when  the  Life-giving 
Breath  of  the  Heavenly  Spirit  has  been  invoked  upon  it,  be 
also  called  by  a  name  which,  though  none  (not  even  the 
Latin  Communion)  apply  it  to  that  material  substance,  does 
belong  to  Him  who  decreed  the  Consecrating  Benediction 
"  till  He  come  "  personally  and  visibly  again  ?  Certain  it  is 
that  "when"  the  Minister  delivereth  THE  BREAD  to  anyone, 
he  shall  say,  THE  BODY  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  which  was 
given  for  thee,  preserve  thy  body  and  soul  unto  everlasting 
life  ;"  and  certain  also  it  is  that  "  The  Body  of  Christ  is 
given  ....  in  the  Supper  [though]  only  after  an  heavenly 
and  spiritual  manner  "  (Art.  xxviii.) — language,  which  in  its 
plain  grammatical  sense  will,  I  think,  seem  to  most  (as  in 
truth  the  very  objections  to  it  indicate)  to  imply  an  intention 
of  recognizing  a  union  which  involves  the  Presence  both  of  the 
Bread  and  of  the  Body  of  Christ ;  as  Archbishop  Cranmer 


398 

said  (See  p.  20),  "  When  I  use  to  speak  sometimes  (as  the 
old  authors  do)  that  Christ  is  in  the  Sacraments,  I  mean  the 
same  as  they  did  understand  the  matter ;  that  is  to  say,  not 
of  Christ's  carnal  presence  in  the  outward  Sacrament,  but 
sometimes  of  His  Sacramental  Presence." 

It  will  have  been  observed,  probably,  that  in  the  paragraph 
embodying  the  sentence  just  discussed,  Mr.  Goode  thinks  one 
necessarily  alternative  meaning  of  "  This  is  my  Body"  must 
be  "  This  is  a  figure  of — represents — my  Body."  But,  as  the 
object  of  all  controversies  on  this  subject  should  be  to  pro- 
mote "  a  godly  union  and  concord,"  it  will  be  well  to  enquire 
whether  such  a  meaning,  if  rightly  understood,  is  not  uniform 
rather  than  alternative.  What,  then,  does  Mr.  Goode  un- 
derstand by  his  alternative  ?  His  meaning  appears  to  be 
very  plainly  set  forth  only  eight  pages  after  the  above  sen- 
tence ;  for  he  says  (p.  66,  the  Italics  are  his) : — 

"  Now  there  is  but  one  way  in  which  bread  can  be  the  body  of 
Christ,  and  that  is  by  representation.  It  is  the  body  of  Christ  as 
a  picture  is  the  person  whom  it  represents.  There  is  absolutely  no 
other  way  of  interpreting  the  words  without  doing  violence  to  them. 
There  is  nothing  in  the  whole  account  which  involves  more  than  a 
change  of  character  arid  use." 

One  obvious  answer  to  this  statement  is — that  it  con- 
tradicts the  Homily  which  says  "  that  in  the  Supper  of  the 
Lord  there  is  ....  no  untrue  figure*  of  a  thing  absent;" 
for  this  ft  a  picture  is  [of]  the  person  whom  it  represents :" 

*  In  reference  to  this  point  it  may  be  useful  to  give  the  following  passages 
from  a  Letter  written  by  Bucer  to  P.  Martyr,  dated  Cambridge,  June  20, 1549. — 
Bucer  is  replying  to  a  Letter  from  P.  Martyr  at  Oxford,  June  15,  1549,  in  which 
the  latter  endeavours  to  reconcile  with  Bucer's  opinions  the  arguments  he  had 
used  in  his  Disputation  at  Oxford  (See  pp.  9 — 13) ;  he  thus  answers  P.  Martyr  . 
— "  I  confess  that,  if  you  had  thought  good  to  consult  with  me  on  the  framing 
of  your  Propositions  [See  p.  10],  I  should  have  entreated  you  to  have  expressed 
the  second  in  these,  or  in  similar  words:  — 2.  The  Body  of  Christ  is  not  contained 
locally  in  the  Bread  and  Wine,  neither  is  it  affixed  or  adjoined  to  those  things  by 
any  manner  of  this  world.  And  to  have  added  at  the  end  of  your  third : — 3.  .  .  . 
so  that,  to  them,  that  believe,  Clirist  is  here  truly  exhibited ;  to  be  seen,  however, 
received,  enjoyed,  by  faith,  not  by  any  sense  or  manner  of  this  world.  ....  The 
reason  why  I  should  have  preferred  your  second  Proposition  expressed  in  the 
words  which  I  have  judged  [more  appropriate. — Ed.],  or,  in  similar  terms,  rather 
than  in  words  which  deny  the  real  and  substantial  presence  of  Christ 
in  the  Sacrament  (or  rather  in  the  Eucharist,  so  that  the  celebration  [actio. — Ed.~\ 
and  the  Sacred  assembly,  rather  than  the  symbols  only,  would  have  been 


399 

it  may  be  never  so  speaking  a  likeness,  but  no  one  dreams 
that  it  does  more  than  quicken  the  recollection  or  the  imagi- 
nation of  the  absent  person.  Is  this,  however,  all  that  the 
Sacrament  of  the  Alter  does?  Did  our  Lord  design  it  to  do 

expressed),  and  also  that  something  should  have  heen  added  to  your  third,  con- 
cerning the  Exhibition  of  Christ,  are  these  : — 

"  We  ought  always  to  endeavour  with  the  greatest  diligence,  to  edify  in  the 
faith  and  love  of  Christ  whomsoever  we  can,  and  to  offend  no  one,  since  the 
necessary  obedience  of  Christ  does  not  require  that ;  and  for  this  reason,  in  order 
that  we  should  not  only  think  but  also  speak  the  same  things,  especially  con- 
cerning Mysteries  of  Christ  so  great  and  so  generally  prized ;  we  should,  more- 
over, take  care  not  to  give  any  occasion  to  the  evil-disposed  for  criminating, 
much  less  of  persecuting,  the  Church  of  God.  Now,  among  those  who  can  be 
edified  in  Christ  by  the  present  Disputation,  I  think  there  are  positively  none  of 
those  with  whom  I  have  ever  had  any  communication  on  this  point  ( — and  I 
have  investigated  the  Sentiments  of  very  many  persons,  both  in  their  writings 
and  by  personal  converse,  during  that  entire  septennary  in  which,  rolling  as  it 
were  the  stone  of  Sisyphus,  I  have  striven  for  the  concord  of  the  Churches  as 
regards  this  matter — )  who  imagine  an  impanation  of  Christ,  or  his  local  con- 
nexion with  the  symbols  of  this  world.— But  some,  like  your  Antagonists,  con- 
tended, that  Christ  is  here  exhibited,  not  in  Bread  and  Wine,  but  in  their 
accidents,  and  that,  as  long  as  those  accidents  remain ;  yet  they  denied  that  He 
is  here  contained  locally.— Or  they  held,  that  undoubtedly  nothing  more  is  here 
exhibited  than  Bread  and  Wine,  as  signs  of  Christ  altogether  absent,  by  which 
we  ought  to  make  only  a  remembrance  of  Him,  and  to  advance  in  the  faith  of 
Him :  however,  some  hold,  that,  by  this  remembrance,  their  minds  are  lifted  up 
into  heaven,  so  that  there  they  enjoy  Christ. — Or  they  were  of  opinion  that,  in 
this  Sacrament,  Christ  exhibits  himself  whole,  God  and  Man ;  and  hence,  for 
the  purpose  of  preserving  this  their  faith,  and  also  of  declaring  that  they  do  not 
agree  with  those  who  here  introduce  naked  and  empty  symbols,  they  like  to 
make  use  of  these  forms  of  speech,  and  to  say,  that  the  Body  of  Christ  is  here 
exhibited  Corporally,  because  His  Body  is  exhibited ;  Substantially,  because 
His  Substance ;  Carnally,  because  His  flesh. — And  there  were  a  very  few  who 
chose  to  use  these  words  after  that  first  fervour  of  the  contention  which  arose  in 
the  early  struggle  of  this  Disputation.  And  those  who  chose  to  use  these  words 
contended,  that  at  least  the  right  of  using  those  forms  of  speech  ought  to  be  left 
to  them :  nevertheless  those  persons  always  plainly  affirmed  that  here  they 
thought  nothing  about  a  descent  from  heaven,  nothing  about  a  local  inclusion : 
and  as  to  that  which  they  maintained  about  the  eating  by  the  wicked,  that  also 
subsisted  in  collation.* — A  good  number  were  of  opinion,  that  the  presence  of 
Christ  was  exhibited  to  them,  in  the  Sacrament,  simply,  for  their  salvation,  if 
they  received  that  [presence. — Ed.]  with  faith;  and  altogether  withdrew  their 
mind  from  [any  speculation  as  to. — Ed.]  the  manner  in  which  He  is  present. 

"  I  have  found  these  and  no  other  opinions,  about  the  presence  of  the  Lord  in 
the  Sacred  Supper,  among  those  with  whom  I  have  ever  conferred  on  this  matter — 
(I  have  conferred,  however,  certainly  with  very  many)  among  whom,  some 
introduced  more,  some  less,  of  a  carnal  contention ;  nevertheless  I  have  decidedly 
found  not  one  person  who  insisted  either  on  a  local  presence  of  Christ,  or  on  a 
connexion  with  the  symbols  after  any  fashion  of  this  world.  It  is  for  us,  how- 
ever, if  we  wish  to  edify  and  in  nothing  to  offend,  to  labour  with  the  utmost 
diligence,  that  we  may  lead  them  into  consent,  as  to  the  truth  of  Christ,  both 

*  "  It  not  being  clear  to  the  Editor  what  was  the  precise  meaning  which  Bucer  intended  to 
convey  by  this  word — 'collatione' — it  has  been  left  in  its  Latin  idiom.  Probably  it  was 
intended  to  signify  a  mere  '  bringing  together '  of  the  elements  and  of  the  receiver,  without 
any  beneficial  effect," 


400 

no  more  ?  Did  St.  Paul  think  it  did  no  more,  when  he 
addressed  the  Galatians  (iii.  1)  in  words  already  referred  to 
(See  p.  352)  ?  Is  not  the  Sacramental  Picture  rather  the  RE- 
presentation,  i.e.,  the  presentation  of  the  REs=the  THING 

between  themselves  and  us,  and  with  the  universal  Church  of  Christ.  I  cannot 
discover  any  more  speedy  and  certain  method  of  persuading  all,  who  are  not 
contentious,  and  who  can  be  edified  in  thi*  matter,  to  [adopt  this. — Ed.\  con- 
sent,— than  this, — since  we  agree  in  sentiment  with  the  Word  of  the  Lord,  and 
with  the  whole  of  the  ancient  Church,  that  we  should  freely  use  the  words 
of  Scripture  and  of  the  ancient  Church  ;  and  so,  that  we  should  both  express  and 
proclaim,  in  very  full  and  certain  words,  that  which  is  the  principal  thing  in  this 
sacred  [matter. — Ed]  ;  as  we  see  in  the  holy  Fathers  was  the  custom  of  the 
early  Church.  Now  in  the  words  of  Christ,  of  the  Apostle,  and  of  the  holy  Fathers, 
we  observe  that  the  very  [ipsam. — Ed.]  exhibition  of  Christ  is  everywhere  most 
fully  expressed  ;  and  the  presence,  not  the  signification  [That  is,  the  representa- 
tion of  Christ  by  a  Sign. — Ed.~\  and  absence,  of  the  Lord.  When,  indeed,  we  are 
treating  of  the  Bread  and  Wine, — they  are  properly  called  signs — to  them  this 
term  is  properly  attributed,  yes,  even  to  the  whole  celebration.  But  neither  the 
signs  themselves,  nor  the  signification  of  Christ,  is  the  principal  thing  which  is 
here  in  discussion ;  but  the  very  exhibition  and  spiritual  eating  of  Him.  On 
this  account  the  holy  Fathers  used  the  word,  Represent  (which  is  the  same  as 
the  word  Exhibit),  rather  than  Signify. 

"  Moreover,  since  here  we  all  acknowledge  that  by  faith  we  verily  take  Christ 
and  have  Him  present ;  and  that  this  taking  and  presence,  not  feigned,  and 
verbal  only,  but  real,  and  of  the  very  substance  of  Christ ;  I  see  no  reason  why 
[the  proposition — Ed.]  that  Christ  is  not  taken  really  and  substantially, 
should  be  defended  as  if  it  were  a  dogma  of  the  Christian  religion.  It  is  far 
better,  I  think,  that  these  terms  [Signification  and  Absence. — Ed.~\  should  be 
discontinued,  which  method  of  concord  was  lately  adopted  with  great  advantage 
in  the  German  Chuiches;  since  they  are  not  [the  words. — Ed.~]  of  Scripture;  nor 
do  they  even,  as  I  believe,  conduce  very  much  to  express  the  truth  of  Scripture ; 
nor  are  they  taken  in  the  same  sense.  For, — when  those  points  are  so  much  con- 
tended, that  Christ  is  so  in  heaven,  that  He  is  really  and  substantially 
absent  from  the  Sacred  Supper,  and  is  only  present  by  signification, — I  have 
found  one  result, — that  there  has  been  a  wonderful  confirmation  of  the  impious 
profanation  of  the  Sacraments  by  those  who  acknowledge  only  naked  signs  in  the 
Eucharist.  [I  have  found,  also, — Ed.]  that  those  who  are  truly  on  our  side,  but 
who  are  oppressed  by  a  certain  superstition  with  respect  to  words,  and  by  the 
obscurity  of  the  matter  itself,  are  much  disturbed  by  this  disputation,  and  are 
too  much  led  away  [from  us.—  Ed]  by  those  who  deny  a  real  presence  of  Christ 
in  the  Supper,  and  admit  nothing  more  than  its  significatory  character.  [I  have 
found. — Ed.]  that  those,  moreover,  who  have  a  more  full  understanding  of  this 
Mystery,  and  are  not  held  [in  bondage. — Ed]  by  a  superstition  with  respect  to 
words,  are  not  a  little  offended;  because  they  see  how  many,— through  this 
negation  of  a  real  presence  of  Christ  in  the  Eucharist,  and  through  the  establish- 
ment of  a  signified  presence, — are  either  precipitated  by  Satan  into  an  absolute 
contempt  of  Sacraments,  or  are  armed  by  him  [to  a  battle. — Ed]  against  the 
Church  of  God,  by  the  pernicious  crime  of  Christ  excluded  from  the  Sacrament. 

"  Well  weighing  these  considerations,  I  am  truly  unwilling  that  Christ  should 
not  be  [allowed  to  be.— Ed.]  really  in  the  Sacred  Supper ;  I  am  unwilling, 
also,  that  against  those  [your  opponents. — Ed]  the  matter  should  be  urged  by 
the  arguments — Christ  is  in  heaven,  circumscribed  by  place ;  therefore  He  is  not  in 
fact  [Re  ipsa  vel  realiter. — Ed]  or  really  (  (which  two  expressions  are,  I  think, 
equivalent,)  in  the  Sacred  Supper  :— but  rather,  therefore  He  is  not  locally 
in  the  Supper.  For  thus  this  argument  ought  to  be  concluded,  unless  it  become 
an  empty  sophism.  But,  if  it  be  so  concluded,  against  whom  is  the  contest? 


401 

of  the  Sacrament  (Sacramentum\  i.e.,  Christ  Himself? 
Bishops  Latimer  and  Ridley  shall  answer  the  question ;  the 
former  declares  (See  p.  40)  "this  same  [spiritual]  presence 
may  be  called  most  fitly  a  real  presence;  that  is,  a  presence 

For  even  the  Schoolmen  did  not  affirm,  that  Christ  was  in  the  Supper  or  in  the 
signs  locally ;  and  who  would  tolerate  antagonists  who  should  affirm  such  a  pro- 
position ?  Indeed,  I  know  that  this  argument  has  given  grave  offence  to  an 
innumerable  multitude  of  the  holiest  brethren ;  who  think  that  they  are  defamed 
by  that  false  accusation;  as  if,  in  truth,  they  included  Christ  locally  in  the 
Bread,  or  even  in  the  celebration  of  the  Supper.  You  [now. — -Ld]  have  the 
reason  why  I  could  have  wished  that  you  had  not  placed  in  your  second  Pio- 
position,  nor  defended  as  a  necessary  dogma  of  our  religion, — That  Christ  is  not 
in  the  Supper,  nor  given  and  taken  really  ;  and  I  should  have  preferred  that  all 
those  words, — .Really,  Substantially,  Carnally,  Corporally, — had  been  omitted. 

"  The  reason  why  I  could  have  wished  that,  in  your  third  Proposition,  you 
had  more  distinctly  expressed  the  exhibition  of  Christ  in  the  Supper,— is  this  ; 
that  I  cannot  desire  that  either  yourself  (who  have  a  very  great  name  among 
the  Churches  of  Christ  in  every  land,  and  who  are  among  the  dearest  of  my 
acquaintance)  or  that  the  Church  of  England  should  anywhere  fall  under 
suspicion,  as  if  you  acknowledged  nothing  in  the  Lord's  Supper  besides  empty 
signs  of  Christ  through  which  the  remembrance  of  Christ  now  absent  ought  to 
be  excited.  For,  although  you  say,  in  your  subsequent  responses,  that  you 
maintain  an  efficacious  signification  and  exhibition  of  Christ;  yet  nearly  the 
whole  Disputation  runs  on  in  such  a  manner,  that  I  fear  too  many  who  may 
read  the  Acts  of  this  Disputation  will  come  to  the  conclusion  that  you  maintain 
that  Christ  is  absent  altogether  from  the  Supper,  and  that  whatsoever  is  done  in 
it  has  no  further  result  than  that  faith,  excited  concerning  Christ  truly  absent,  is 
increased  through  the  Spirit  of  Christ,  by  His  benefits  brought  to  mind  and  by 
meditation ;  and  that  you  do  not  acknowledge  that  the  very  Christ,  (beginning 
[to  do  this.— Ed.]  in  Baptism,  and  continuing  [to  do  it— Ed.~\  more  and  more  in 
the  Eucharist,)  exhibits  and  communicates  Himself  present  to  His  own  by  that 
communication,  by  which  they  verily  are  and  remain  in  Him,  and  have  Him 
being  and  remaining  in  themselves.  To  sum  up  :  they  will  think  you  maintain 
the  presence,  not  of  Christ,  but  only  of  the  Spirit  of  Christ,  and  of  His  influence ; 
although  I  know  that  you  acknowledge  that  Christ  exhibits  Himself  present  to 
faith." 

Then,  having  given  P.  Martyr  his  advice  as  to  the  publication  of  hia  Dispu- 
tation, he  goes  on  to  say  :  — "  Moreover,,  I  could  desire  (you  will  certainly  find  a 
suitable  place,  possibly  in  your  Peroration,)  that  you  would  very  clearly  define 
those  words,  '  Esse  in  Sacramento  Ckrtsti  Corpus  realiter,'  [That  the  body  of 
Christ  is  really  *  in  the  Sacrament, — Ed.]  and  in  such  terms  as  shall  point  out 
the  altogether  absurd  and  impious  sense  of  those  words ;  and  that  you  would 
then  add,  that  some  persons  go  astray  into  that  absurd  and  impious  sense ;  in 
order  that  it  might  more  distinctly  appear  that  you  here  by  no  means  wish  to 
traduce  any  Churches  or  brethren  who  are  most  averse  from  that  sense  which 
you  oppose.  Lastly.  [I  wish  that. — Ed.~\  you  would  confess  (if  you  can  do  so 
with  a  safe  conscience,)  'that  Christ  undoubtedly  is  (since  we  must  speak  with 
simplicity)  in  His  Sacraments,  and  present  f  in  them,  not  absent  from  them' ; 

*  That  is  carnally,  organically :  this  was  contended  for  by  some  on  the  Roman  side,  as 
P.  Martyr's  Disputation  prores,  and  as  I  have  shewn  throughout. 

t  Bucer's  anxiety  on  this  point  is  further  shewn  in  the  following  passage  from  his  Letter  a 
year  later  to  Theobald  Niger,  dated  Cambridge,  April  15, 1550  :  in  it  he  says  "  Dr.  Peter  Martyr's 
Disputation  was  planned,  and  his  Propositions  communicated,  before  J  came  into  England. 
I  could  have  wished  a  modified  Proposition,  composed  in  words  altogether  different,  and 
those  [the  words — Ed.]  of  Scripture.  I  am  well  assured,  however,  that  he  by  no  means 
wished  that  the  Supper  of  the  Lord  should  be  [viewed  as — Ed.]  a  mere  administration  of 
Bread  and  Wine;  he  acknowledges  the  presence  and  exhibition  of  Christ;  but,  since  the 

F  F  F 


402 

not  figured,  but  a  true  and  a  faithful  presence  :"  the  latter 
says,  distinctly  enough  as  it  seems  to  me  (See  p.  186) : — "  in 
the  Sacrament  is  a  certain  change,  in  that,  the  bread,  which 
was  before  common  bread,  is  now  made  a  lively  presentation* 

but  that  you  would  always  add,  'that  we  may  enjoy  t  Him  by  Faith,'  as  Paul 
says,  that  *  He  dwells  in  our  hearts  by  Faith.'  For  though  we  should  grant 
you,  that  He  is  circumscribed  even  in  heaven  by  a  physical  place,  how  is  that 
inconsistent  with  His  being  now  truly  present  to  us  by  faith ;  even  as  the  Sun, 
in  whatever  part  of  the  world  we  behold  him,  is  truly  present  to  us  by  sight. 
Certainly  all  errors  which  can  possibly  arise  from  the  name  '  Presence/  may  be 
altogether  excluded  by  such  words,  which  can  neither  disturb  any  of  the  brethren, 
nor  arm  our  enemies  against  us  by  false  criminations :  I  mean, — if  we  deny, 
together  with  transubstantiation,  both  a  local  presence,  and  any  [presence — EdJ] 
of  this  world's  character." — Gorham' s  Reformation  Gleanings,  pp.  83-90. 

These  last  words  are  especially  noteworthy  as  shewing  how  large  a  liberty  of 
belief  Bucer  was  willing  to  accord,  and  so  they  may  with  the  utmost  probability 
be  accounted  a  valuable  indirect  confirmation  of  what  was  said,  at  p.  4  and  else- 
where, as  to  the  like  freedom  which  the  Authorities  in  the  Church  of  England 
designed  to  allow  :  Sneer's  statement  ought,  moreover,  to  have  especial  weight 
with  those  who  hold  that  he  influenced  the  changes  in  the  2nd  Prayer  Book  of 
Edw.  Vlth  to  a  much  greater  extent  than  (as  I  have  already  pointed  out) 
Historical  statements  seem  to  warrant  us  in  believing.  In  further  proof  of 
this  last  remark  may  be  quoted  the  following  passage  of  a  Letter  from  P. 
Martyr  to  Bucer,  written  at  Oxford  early  in  February  1551: — "On  the  1st 
of  February  I  received  your  letter  dated  January  22nd.  Concerning  the 
Eeformation  of  the  Rituals  [Rituum — Ed.~\  I  cannot  write  anything  else  as 
to  what  will  be  [done— Ed.~\  except  that  the  Bishops  have  agreed  among 
themselves  on  many  emendations  and  corrections  in  the  published  Book. 
Indeed,  I  have  seen  the  alterations  on  which  they  have  decided,  noted  in 
their  places;  but  as  I  am  ignorant  of  English,  and  could  not  understand 
them,  so  I  am  unable  to  give  you  any  certain  information  about  them.  How- 
ever, I  do  not  think  they  have  gone  so  far  as  to  determine  on  adopting  the  whole 
of  your  and  my  suggestions.  To  our  [Archbishop—  Ed.~\  indeed,  I  said,  more 
than  once,  that,  having  undertaken  this  correction  of  the  Rituals,  they  ought  to 

*  Even  P.  Martyr,  in  his  "  Confession  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  exhibited  to  the 
Senate  of  Strasburgh,  about  the  middle  of  May,  1556,  when  he  was  called  to 
Zurich,"  could  thus  speak :  -  "  I  would  grant,  moreover,  that  the  bread  itseJf  is, 
in  its  own  peculiar  manner,  the  Body  of  Christ,  and  is  so  called  because, 
namely,  it  is  its  Sacrament.  For  both  Scripture  and  the  Fathers  often  so  speak 
of  the  Sacraments.  But  they  who  hold  the  opposite  opinion  will  themselves, 
too,  perhaps,  concede  a  trope  in  the  words  cited;  or  rather,  being  compelled  of 
necessity,  they  thus  explain  that  phrase :  —  ' This  is  my  Body,' — i.e.,  'With 
this — namely,  bread— is  my  Body  given.'  And  I,  too,  should  not  object  to 
admit  this  interpretation,  if  they  would  understand  that  the  Body  of  Christ  is 
given  without  a  substantial  or  corporal  presence.  But,  since  they  will 
not  allow  this,  I,  for  the  avoiding  of  ambiguity,  abstain  from  that  kind  of  trope, 
and  am  contented  with  the  common  and  received  one  of  signification,  which 
the  Fathers,  too,  of  old  employed."—  Gor ham's  Reformation  Gleanings,  p.  362. 

Zurich  people  have  here  many  and  great  followers,  this  excellent  man  was  drawn,  I  hardly 
know  how,  to  consent  to  use  the  word,  'Signification,' although  he  added,  'efficacious,'  by 
which  he  understands  the  exhibition  of  Christ,  as  he  himself  explains  it  in  the  Preface  to  his 
Disputations;  in  which  [Preface — J3d.],  by  my  advice,  he  added  many  observations  to  his 
own,  and  withdrew  some  (—the  Disputations  were  already  published—);  for  he  is  most 
desirous  of  a  pious  concord." — Gorham's  Reformation  Gleanings,  p.  142. 

t  I  notice  this  word  as  being  something  like  an  answer  to  the  following  complaint  which 
Mr.  Goode  makes  against  Dr.  Pusey. — ".  .  .  he  then  seeks  to  strain  in  a  similar  way  a  very 


403 

of  Christ's  body,  and  not  only  a  figure,  but  effectuously  re- 
presenteth  his  body  ....  which  trie  eyes  of  faith  see,  as  the 
bodily  eyes  see  only  bread."  What  is  this,  too,  but  in  part 
the  language  of  Art.  xxv.,  "  Sacraments  ordained  of  Christ . . . 

look  well  to  it;  that  the  restoration  they  make  should  be  so  simple,  chaste,  and 
pure,  that  there  may  be  no  further  need  for  emendations :  for,  if  frequent  changes 
should  take  place  in  these  matters,  it  might  at  length  easily  come  to  pass  that 
they  would  fall  into  general  contempt.*  And  I  am  persuaded  that,  if  the 
business  had  been  committed  to  his  individual  hand,  purity  of  ceremonies  f 
would  without  difficulty  have  been  attained  by  him :  but  he  has  colleagues  who 
offer  resolute  opposition.  Cheke  is  the  only  person  there,  who  openly  and 
earnestly  favours  simplicity  .  .  .  ." — Gorham's  Reformation  Gleanings,  p.  231. 

The  following  passage  from  Mr.  Fisher  is  also  in  place  here :  —  " .  .  .  although 
foreigners,  and  belonging  to  a  school  of  theology  different  in  many  respects  from 
his  own — they  [i.  e.,  Bucer  and  P.  Martyr]  are,  nevertheless,  supposed  to  have 
swayed  materially  the  mind  of  our  great  Reformer  [CranmerJ  in  his  treatment 
of  the  Service-book.  This,  however,  it  should  be  observed,  is  mere  surmise ; 
and  a  surmise,  too,  based  upon  the  purest  assumption.  Probably  both  Bucer 
and  P.  Martyr— at  least  the  former — might  be  consulted  by  the  Archbishop ;  but 
we  have  no  proof  that  he  was  really  influenced  by  either  of  them  in  his  prepara- 
tion of  the  Liturgy.  (See  Lawrence's  Bampton  Lectures,  p.  247).  Indeed, 
there  are  letters  extant  which  seem  to  shew  very  clearly,  that  P.  Martyr  himself 
was  by  no  means  deeply  in  the  confidence  of  Cranmer  .  .  .  ." — Lit.  Purity, 
2nd  Ed.,  1860,  p.  136. 

With  regard  to  the  doctrinal  questions,  of  "  transubstantiation,"  and  "  a  local 
presence,"  mentioned  at  the  end  of  Bucer's  Letter,  and  also  as  supporting  the 
allegation  made  throughout  these  pages— that  Transubstantiation  was  the  main 
point  of  attack  by  the  English  Reformers— it  is  desirable  to  cite  the  following 
passage  from  Bucer's  letter  to  Niger,  April  15th,  1550,  already  quoted  from  at  p. 
401 :  "  Up  to  this  time  nothing  further  is  established  in  this  kingdom  concerning 
that  controversy,  than  that  Transubstantiation  is  not  to  be  affirmed.  In  the  Public 
Prayers,  however,  at  the  Lord's  Supper,  a  true  exhibition  of  the  Body  and  Blood 
of  Christ  is  expressed  in  words  exceedingly  clear  and  weighty."—  Gorham's 
Reformation  Gleanings,  p.  143.  The  Editor  remarks  in  a  Note  "The  words  in 
Edward  Vlth's  first  Liturgy,  1549,  which  Bucer  so  highly  approved  were : — 
*  With  Thy  Holy  Spirit  and  word,  vouchsafe  to  ble-f-ss  and  sanc-f-tify  these  thy 
gifts,  and  creatures  of  Bread  and  Wine,  that  they  may  be  unto  us  the  Body  and 
Blood  of  Thy  most  dearly  beloved  Son  Jesus  Christ.'  In  the  Second  Liturgy, 
1552,  they  were  expunged,  and  the  following  substituted:  'Grant  that  we, 
receiving  these  thy  creatures  of  Bread  and  Wine,  according  to  thy  Son  our 

plain  passage  of  one  of  the  Homilies.  The  words  of  the  Homily  being, — '  so  that  to  think  that 
without  faith  we  may  enjoy  the  eating  and  drinking  thereof,  or  that  that  is  the  fruition  of  it, 
is  but  to  dream  a  gross  carnal  feeding.'  Dr.  Pusey  actually  fixes  upon  the  words  '  enjoy' 
and  'fruition  '  as  shewing  that  the  writer  meant  that  we  may  '  eat  and  drink  thereof,'  but  not 
'  enjoy  '  that  eating  and  drinking !  He  says  that  the  writer  of  the  Homily  '  lays  down,  that 
faith  is  essential,  not  to  any  reception  of  our  Lord's  Body,  but  to  '  the  fruition  '  of  it,  or  the 
benefits  resulting  from  it.  In  that  he  denies,  that  '  eating  without  faith  '  is  'the  fruition  of 
it,'  he  even  implies,  that  it  may  be  a  reception  of  it,  although  not  the  fruition  of  it.  He  lays 
the  emphasis  upon  the  words  '  enjoy,'  '  fruition.'  (p.  219.)  Faith  is  '  the  mean,"  according  to 
him,  by  which  a  man  healthily  receives  'the  spiritual  food'  of  the  Body  and  Blood  of  Christ.' 
(ib.);  where  the  word  'healthily'  is  put  in  by  Dr.  Pusey,  so  as  to  change  entirely  the 
character  of  the  doctrine  delivered.  Such  is  the  way  in  which  the  plain  statement  of  the 
Homily  is  explained  away  !  " — Supplement,  p.  28. 

*  Cranmer's  Letter  (See  p.  77)  plainly  shews  that  he  thought  so  too,  and  that  he  considered 
there  was  "  no  further  need  for  emendation  "  after  the  changes  which  had  been  made  in  the 
revisions  embodied  in  the  2nd  Book. 

+  This  seems  plainly  to  imply  that  neither  Martyr  nor  Bucer  were  dissatisfied  with  the 
doctrine  of  the  First  Book. 


404 

be  ....  effectual  signs  of  grace  .  .  .  ."  Can  any  one  truly 
say  of  a  PICTURE  what  Latimer,  Ridley,  and  the  Article  here 
say  of  the  Sacraments  ?  Surely  not. 

But  having  thus  noticed  the  one,  what  can  be  said  of  the 

Saviour  Jesus  Christ's  holy  institution,  in  remembrance  of  his  death  and  passion, 
may  be  partakers  of  his  most  blessed  Body  and  Blood.'  " 

Now  if  Mr.  Gorbam  is  correct,  though  I  think  he  is  not,  in  supposing  that  Bucer 
referred  to  the  words  of  lu vocation,  then  the  commonly  received  notion — that 
they  were  altered  at  his  instance — is  unfounded.  Judging  from  Bucer' s  language 
as  to  P.  Martyr's  Eucharistic  Statements,  the  probability  is  that  if  either  of  them 
induced  the  alteration  it  was  P.  Martyr  ;  especially  as  Bucer  died  seven  months 
before  the  completion  of  the  Book,  and  P.  Martyr  was  one  of  those  whom  the 
Privy  Council  wished  Cranmer  to  consult  touching  the  proposal  to  omit  the 
Rubric  on  kneeling  at  receiving  the  Sacrament.  Mr.  Goode,  however,  (Work 
on  the  Eucharist,  p.  618)  takes  the  opposite  view  to  Mr.  Gorham;  speaking  of 
the  Invocation  he  says  : — "  Now,  no  doubt,  these  words  may  be  so  explained  as 
not  to  countenance  the  doctrine  of  a  real  presence  in  the  Consecrated  Elements, 
but  they  are  very  open  to  an  interpretation  of  that  kind.  And  accordingly  we 
find  Bucer,  in  his  remarks  on  the  Prayer  Book,  written  at  the  request  of  Arch- 
bishop Cranmer  for  his  use  in  the  revision  of  the  Book,  taking  particular  ex- 
ception to  them,  as  open  to  an  interpretation  involving  the  Romish  doctrine  of 
Transubstantiation,  and  he  proceeds  to  use  words  which  exclude  Archdeacon 
Denison's  doctrine  as  much  as  that  of  the  Romanists.  He  says, — 

"  '  The  holy  Fathers  understood  no  other  change  of  those  elements  from  these 
words,  than  that  by  which  the  bread  and  wine,  remaining  in  every  respect  in 
the  properties  of  their  own  nature,  were  then  so  changed  from  their  vulgar  and 
common  use,  and  as  it  were  translemented,  as  to  be  symbols  *  (symbola)  of  the 
same  Body  and  Blood,  and  so  of  Christ  himself,  God  and  man,  the  bread  which 
came  down  from  heaven  to  give  life  to  the  world  :  so  that  whoever  should  take 
them  according  to  our  Lord's  institution,  and  with  true  faith  in  Him,  should  be 
partakers  of  a  fuller  communion  with  the  Lord,  and  enjoy  f  Him  for  the  meat 
and  drink  of  eternal  life,  by  which  they  might  more  and  more  live  in  Him,  and 
have  Him  living  in  themselves.' — Buceri  Censura  in  Ordinat  Ecclesiast.  Op.  ed. 
Basil,  1557,  p.  471. 

"  Accordingly  these  words  were  altered,  and  remain  altered,  to  the  very  words 
which  we  have  seen  Dr.  Brett  J  quoting  as  proof  that  the  Church  of  England 

*  But  not,  as  he  says  (See  p. 401),  "Empty  signs  of  Christ,  through  which  the  remem- 
brance of  Christ  now  absent  ought  to  be  excited." 

t  The  same  expression  as  I  have  noticed  at  p.  402. 

J  The  passage  which  Mr.  Goode  cites  from  Dr.  Brett  is  the  following  : — "  I  was  and  am 
very  desirous  to  believe  that  the  Church  of  England  holds  the  doctrine  so  plainly  taught  by 
our  Saviour.  But  I  know  not  how  to  reconcile  the  Consecration  prayer  in  the  present 
established  Liturgy  to  this  doctrine,  for  that  makes  a  plain  distinction  betwixt  the  Bread  and 
Wine  and  our  Saviour's  Body  and  Blood,  when,  as  Mr.  Spinckes  shows,  and  the  words  will 
bear  no  other  construction  than  that,  it  was  the  Bread  which  Christ  said  was  His  Body  ; 
whereas  the  Consecration  Prayer  evidently  supposes  them  to  be  two  distinct  things. 
'  Grant  that  we,  receiving  these  thy  creatures  of  Bread  and  Wine,  may  be  partakers  of 
Christ's  Body  and  Blood.'  Which  manifestly  implies  the  Bread  and  Wine  to  be  distinct  or 
different  things  from  the  Body  and  Blood.  For  if  the  Bread  be  Christ's  Body,  as 
Mr.  Spinckes  proves  the  words  of  Institution  teach,  then  he  that  receives  or  partakes  of  the 
Bread  must  be  a  p;irtaker  of  the  Body.  And  except  they  are  supposed  to  be  two  things, 
then  the  Prayer  is,  that  we,  receiving  or  partaking  of  the  Body  and  Blood  of  Christ,  may  be 
partakers  of  His  Body  and  Blood.  This  nonsensical  interpretation  must  be  given  of  this 
Petition,  if  the  Prayer  is  understood  in  the  sense  which  Mr.  Spinckes  declares  and  proves  to 
be  the  necessary  inevitable  consequence  of  our  Saviour's  words,  and  which  I  verily  believe 
to  be  so.  But  the  ancient  Church,  as  appears  from  all  the  Liturgies,  never  prayed  in  this 
manner.  They  never  prayed,  that,  receiving  Bread  and  Wine,  they  might  be  partakers  of 
Christ's  Body  and  Klood,  but  that  they  might  be  worthy  partakers,  that  they  might  partake  of 
it  to  their  benefit,  and  not  to  their  condemnation." — "  Brett's  Discourse  concerning  the 
necessity  of  discerning  Ihe  Lord's  Body  in  the  Holy  Communion.  London,  1720.  Preface, 
pp.  xix.— xxi." 


405 

other  "  alternative  "  which  Mr.  Goode  presents  ?  He  states 
it  to  be  that — "  This  is  my  Body  "  must  necessarily  seem  to 
mean  "  This  is  really  and  substantially  my  Body."  The 
admission  or  rejection  of  this  must,  however,  turn  upon  the 

holds,  that  the  consecrated  Bread  and  Wine  may  be  received  where  the  Body 
and  Blood  of  Christ  are  not  received,  and  therefore  do  not  include  in  themselves 
a  real  presence  of  the  Body  and  Blood  of  Christ ;  namely,  the  words,  '  Grant 
that  we,  receiving,'  "  &c. 

With  respect  to  Dr.  Brett's  difficulty  it  is  enough  to  say  here— that  it  seems 
to  me  fully  met  by  the  fact  of  the  different  language  employed  in  the  Prayer  of 
Access  and  in  the  Consecration  Prayer :  the  former,  simply  contemplating  the 
approach  of  Communicants  after  the  act  of  Consecration,  says,  "  Grant  us  there- 
fore, gracious  Lord,  so  to  eat  the  flesh  of  thy  dear  Son  Jesus  Christ,  and  to 
drink  his  Blood,  that  our  sinful  bodies  may  be  made  clean,"  &c. :  the  latter 
necessarily  contemplates  the  Elements  in  a  two-fold  aspect,  (I)  what  they  alone 
are  before  the  recital  of  the  words  of  Institution — "  creatures  of  bread  and 
wine" — (2)  what  they  also  become  after  such  recital— Christ's  "most  blessed 
Body  and  Blood." 

An  examination  of  the  "  Censura "  shews,  I  think,  that  Mr.  Gorham  was 
wrong  and  that  Mr.  Goode  is  right  in  supposing  that  Bucer's  commendatory 
words  referred  to  the  Invocation :  the  following  passage  seems  to  prove  that  it 
must  have  been  the  frayer  of  Access  to  which  he  referred :  — 

"  Postremo  sunt  verba  in  hac  prsecedenti  precatione,  quse  incipiunt,  Vue  doe 
not  presume  to  come  to  this,  &c.,  verba  de  vera  perceptione  &  manducatione 
bibitionemque ;  corporis  &  sanguinis  Domini,  quae  oro  Dominum,  ut  det  itaut 
posita  sunt,  retineri,  ilia  scii.  in  hac  quidem  oratione,  Humblye  beseechinge  thee, 
&c.  Valde  namque  ;  pura  haec  verba  sunt,  &  verbis  spiritus  S.  consentientia.  Om- 
nino  enim  instituit  Dominushanc  sui  communionerr  xoivuviatv  corporis  &  sanguinis 
sui,  ut  earn  vocat  spiritus  S.  1  Corint.  10.  ut  ea.recipiamus,  non  panem  tantum 
&  vinuin,  dicenda  alio  qui  fuisset  uno  corporis  &  sanguinis  Domini,  sed  panis  ac 
vir.i  communio.  Turn,  nee  causa  fuisset,  ut  Dominus,  cum  distribuen do  panem  & 
vinum  discipulis  dixisset,  Accipite  &  manducate  &  bibite,  subjiceret,  Hoc  est  corpus 
meum,  Hie  est  sanguis  meus.  Recepimus  ergo  hie  non  panem  tantum  &  vinum,  sed 
simul  corpus  &  sanguinum  ejus:  &  non  quidem  hsec  sola,  verum  una  totum 
Christum,  Deum  &  hominem.  At  quia  verum  hominem,  &  simul  verum  Deum, 
ideo  &  carnem  &  sanguinem  recepimus.  Est  emim  haec  caro,  quia  est  filiii  Dei, 
sic  &  sanguis  ^WOTTCHOS,  ut  D.  Cyrillus,  contra  Nestorium  pulchre  explicat,  & 
probat,  &  ex  eo,  quod  Dominus  contra  Capernaitas  affirmauit  de  carne  & 
sanguine  suo,  cum  ipsi  indignum  putarent,  quod  dixisset,  se  panem  esse  qui 
descendisset  de  caelo,  vitamque :  daret  mundo  :  quando  quidem  ipsi  eum,  ut  filiuiu 
que  Josephi,  ita  rdhil  amplius  existimabant,  quam  alium  quemque ;  honiiuem  con- 
stantem  carne  &  sanguine."— Scripta  Anglicana.  Basileae,  p.  473. 

But  when  Mr.  Goode  says  "Accordingly  these  words  [«'.«.,  the  Invocation] 
were  altered  and  remain  altered  to  "  the  words  "  Grant  that  we  receiving  these 
thy  creatures  of  bread  and  wine,  according  to  thy  Son  our  Saviour  Jesus 
Christ's  holy  institution,  in  remembrance  of  his  death  and  passion,  may  be  par- 
takers of  his  most  blessed  Body  and  Blood :  who,  in  the  same  night,"  &c.,  he 
seems  to  me  to  represent  inaccurately  that  they  were  adopted  from  Bucer, 
though  his  suggestion  may  have  led  to  them  :  his  proposition  was  to  "change" 
the  Invocation  "into  these  or  similar  words,"  viz. — "  Hear  us,  0  merciful  God 
our  Father,  and  bless  us,  and  sanctify  us  by  Thy  word  and  Holy  Spirit,  that  we 
may  receive  the  Body  and  Blood  of  Thy  Son  from  His  own  hand  in  these 
mysteries  by  a  true  faith  for  the  meat  and  drink  of  eternal  life,  which  Thy  Son, 
in  the  same  night  in  which  He  was  bttrajed,'*"  &c. 


406 

sense  in  which  he  uses,  or  others  receive,  these  terms ;  for 
that  they  have  been  used  in  opposite  senses  for  Three  Cen- 
turies these  pages  have,  I  think,  abundantly  shewn.  If, 
therefore,  by  Really  is  not  mean — carnally,  sensibly,  na- 

Now  it  will  be  seen,  I  think,  that  between  Bucer's  language  and  the 
language  of  the  Prayer  Book  might  be  found  the  whole  doctrine  of  the 
objective  presence  in  the  Elements  or  in  the  Mysteries  irrespective  of  the  Faith  of 
the  Receiver;  even  though  it  may  have  been,  judging  from  the  Letter  just 
quoted  and  other  statements,  that  Bucer  intended  no  more  than  the  exclusion  of 
a  local  organical  Presence.*  The  Consecration  Prayer  as  altered  in  1552  makes 
the  participation,  and  therefore  the  presence,  depend  upon  receiving  according  to 
the  Institution:  Bucer's  language  apparently  makes  it  to  depend  upon  the 
receiver's  sanctification  and  his  true  faith— conditions  which  need  not  in  the 
least  imply  an  objective,  but  only  a  subjective  presence.  The  change,  then,  as 
made  by  Cranmer  and  his  co-revisers,  while  avoiding  the  doubtful  terminology 
of  Bucer,  met  his  objection  (which,  whether  forcible  or  not,  was,  in  part,  as  we 
have  seen,  common  enough  then) — "  that  we  are  not  taught  by  any  precept  of 
Christ  our  Saviour,  by  any  word  or  example  of  His  Apostles,  to  ask  for  such  a 
benediction  and  sanctification  of  the  bread  and  wine  as  that  they  may  be  to  us 
the  Body  and  Blood  of  the  Lord ;  and  we  know  that  this  prayer  is  still,  at  this 
day,  wrested  by  Antichrist  to  the  retaining  and  confirming  of  that  dogma  of 
infinite  impiety  and  contumely  against  God,  the  tra.nsubstantia.tion  of 
the  bread  and  wine  into  the  Body  and  Blood  of  Christ.  For  by  that  chiefly 
subsists  the  aproXarpEia,  bread  being  adored  as  Christ;  resorted  to  as  a 
present  deity  in  all  emergencies." 

These  considerations  also  answer,  I  think,  Mr.  Goode's  remark  that  Bucer's 
words  (which  he  quotes)  "  exclude  Archdeacon  Denison's  doctrine  as  much  as  that 
of  the  Romanists." 

*  Compare  remarks  on  P.  Martyrs's  Letter,  Note,  p.  402 :  also  the  following  passage  from 
Bucer's  Letter  to  P.  Martyr,  June  20,  1549,—"  One  thing,  however,  has  very  much  astonished 
me ;  that  you  seem  to  fear  I  shall  be  offended  at  your  denying,  That  Christ  is  at  the  same 
moment  in  many  places;  and  that  it  has  escaped  you  that  I,  with  Master  Philip 
[Melancthon— JSd.],  abominate  from  my  whole  heart  that  Ubiquity  (as  Philip  calls  it,)  of 
Christ  as  man  which  some  have  laid  down  [as  a  dogma— Ed.].  I  have  never  felt  disposed, 
nor  am  I  up  to  this  moment  disposed,  to  come  forward  in  that  controversy,  Whether  Christ 
is  circumscribed  by  any  Physical  place  in  the  heavens.  He  sits  at  the  right  hand  of  God ; 
He  has  left  the  world ;  He  is  conversant  with  those  good  things  which  have  not  entered  into 
the  {heart  of  man  here  [below— Ed.].  I  refrain,  therefore,  from  transferring  our  modes  of 
existence  and  Physical  conditions  to  this  subject,  further  than  this; — that  I  always 
acknowledge  and  confess  both  the  true  nature  of  a  human  body  and  also  soul  to  be  actually 
in  my  Head  and  Saviour,  and  glory  that  I  am  flesh  of  His  Flesh  and  bone  of  His  Bones  .  .  . 
And  certainly  if  you  have  told  anyone  that  1  maintain  that  Christ  is  at  the  same  time  in 
many  places,  I  mean  locally, — I,  who  in  these  Mysteries  exclude  all  idea  of  place, — I  intreat 
you  to  have  the  kindness  to  explain  to  such  an  one  my  sentiment  more  correctly :  which  is 
this  :  that  Christ  exhibits  Himself  at  the  same  moment  and  truly,  by  the  Word  and  by  His 
Sacraments,  present  to  us,  although  we  are  existing  in  many  places  ;  but  that  we  see  and 
apprehend  Him,  present,  by  faith  only,  without  any  idea  of  place."— Gorham's  Reformation 
Gleanings,  p.  91.  See,  too,  his  Letter  to  Calvin,  August,  1549,  Ibid.,  pp.  99— 108;  and  the 
testimony  of  A.  Lasco  to  Bullinger,  April  10,  1551  :— "  D.  Bucer  began  a  Treatise  on  the 
Sacraments,  a  little  before  his  death,  but  did  not  finish  it.  He  was  preparing,  as  I  hear, 
answers  to  my  [observations— Ed.} ;  but  I  saw  nothing  of  them,  though  I  could  have 
wished  to  see  them.  However,  as  far  as  I  can  understand,  he  remained  firm  in  his  sentiment 
concerning  the  presence,  and  the  real  exhibition  of  the  Body  and  Blood  of  Christ,  in  the 
signs,  or  through  the  signs." — Ibid.,  p.  248. 

The  following  short  extract  of  a  Letter  from  P.  Martyr  to  Calvin,  Strasburgh,  March  8, 
1555,  is  worth  inserting  here : — "  He  [i.  e.,  Marback]  got  so  far  as  not  to  include  the  Body  of 
Christ  in  the  bread,  but  he  insists  that  an  actual  and  most  real  presence  must  be  asserted,  so 
far  as  the  communicants  are  concerned,  of  the  Body  and  Blood  of  Christ,  and  such  a 
presence  that  even  the  wicked  and  they  that  eat  unworthily  do  partake  it ;  which  clearly 
shows  that  he  does  not  attribute  the  reception  to  faith,  unless  we  speak  of  a  living  and 
salutary  reception ;  as  though  there  were  a  certain  other  true  and  (as  they  say)  real  eating 
of  Christ's  Body  :  which  even  the  wicked  may  share."— Ibid.,  p.  341. 


407 

turally ;  and  if  by  Substantially  is  not  meant — materially, 
corporeally,  organically :  then,  but  not  otherwise,  there  need 
be  no  hesitation  in  accepting  this  interpretation,  and  sup- 
porting it  by  Bishop  Ridley's  authority  (See  p.  18),  "  These 
words,  '  This  is  My  Body/  are  meant  thus  :  by  grace  it  is 
My  true  Body,  but  not  My  fleshly  Body,  as  some  of  you 
suppose : "  or,  again,  by  Abp.  Cranmer's  words  "  Marry,  to 
be  present  in  bread  might  be  some  sentence,  but  this  speech 
you  [Gardiner]  will  in  no  wise  admit,"  (See  p.  181.)  It  seems 
to  me,  then,  that  we  may  accept  both  the  one  and  the  other 
fc  alternative"  of  Mr.  Goode,  if  only  we  receive  them  in  the 
sense  wherein  I  have  tried  to  shew  they  can  be  rightly  under- 
stood. Indeed,  in  one  place  Mr.  Goode  seems  unwilling  to 
commit  himself  to  a  doctrine  of  mere  "  representation  "  or 
"picture ; "  for  he  says  (Work,  p.  215,  the  Italics  are  mine.) 
"  We  maintain  a  real  spiritual  presence  of  Christ's  body  and 
blood  to  the  faithful  communicant  as  much  as  they  [Arch- 
deacons Denison  and  Wilberforce  and  Dr.  PuseyJ  do.  But 
as  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ  are  food  for  the  soul  only, 
so  their  presence  is  vouchsafed,  primarily  at  least,  only  to 
the  soul,  and  for  this  there  is  no  need  of  local  proximity/' 
I  cannot  but  ask — how  do  we  know  that  "  there  is  no  "  such 
"  need  "  ?  and  I  must  add — that  what  has  just  been  said  in 
reference  to  the  sense  of  Mr.  Goode's  alternative  is,  I  think, 
also  an  answer  to  the  following  (somewhat  harshly-worded) 
passage  in  his  Supplement  (p.  46) : — 

"  .  .  .  .  men  who  have  not  given  themselves  over  to  a  spirit  of 
delusion  on  such  matters,  will,  I  suspect,  agree  with  me,  that  if  there 
is  a  real  substantial  presence  of  the  body  of  Christ  in  the  bread, 
there  is  a  bodily  presence,  and  that  the  presence  of  Christ's  human 
body  involves  the  presence  of  a  material  substance  ;  and  that  we  are 
not  to  be  deterred  from  saying  so,  because  these  authors  [Archdeacon 
Denison  and  Dr.  Pusey]  finding  inconvenient  articles  and  rubrics  in 
their  way,  deny  in  one  form  of  words,  what  they  assert  in  another." 

In  connexion,  too,  with  those  same  remarks  above  made 
upon  the  Nature  of  the  Presence,  it  may  be  useful  to  notice 
this  observation  in  Mr.  Goode's  Supplement  (p.  41)  ;  where, 
referring  to  his  Work,  he  says : — 


408 


"  I  have  stated  that  all  those  expressions  in  the  Prayer-Book  of 
1549,  which  might  seem  to  indicate  that  the  presence  of  the  Body 
and  Blood  of  Christ  was  to  be  looked  for  in  the  consecrated  elements, 
are  carefully  expunged  or  altered  in  the  subsequent  Prayer- Books  to 
the  present  time, " 

The  "expressions"  themselves,  as  altered  in  the  Book  of 
1552,  are  thus  given  by  Mr.  Goode  in  pp.  617  to  619  of  his 
Work ;  they  will  be  most  conveniently  compared  when 
placed  in  parallel  columns ;  the  Italics  are  his  : — 


1549. 

1.  "...  he  hath  left  in  those 
holy  mysteries,  as  a  pledge  of  his 
love,   and   a   continual    remem- 
brance   of    the    same,    his    own 
blessed  Body  and  precious  Blood, 
for  us  to  feed  upon  spiritually,  to 
our  endless  comfort  and  consola- 
tion." 

2.  "With  thy  Holy  Spirit  and 
word    vouchsafe    to    bless    and 
sanctify     these     thy    gifts    and 
creatures  of  bread  and  wine,  that 
they  may  be  unto  us  the  Body  and 
Blood  of  thy  most  dearly  beloved 
Son  Jesus  Christ." 

3.  "...  beseeching  thee  that 
whosoever    shall     be     partakers 
of  this   Holy   Communion,   may 
worthily  receive  the  most  precious 
Body  and  Blood  of  thy  Son  Jesus 
Christ." 

4.  "...  so  to  eat  the  flesh  of 
thy  dear  Son  Jesus  Christ,  and  to 
drink   his  blood,    in    these    holy 
mysteries." 

5.  " .  .  .  hast   vouchsafed   to 
feed  us  in  these  holy  mysteries 
with    the    spiritual   food   of  the 
most  precious  Body  and  Blood  of 
thy  Son  our  Saviour  Jesus  Christ, 
and  hast  assured  us  (duly  receiv- 
ing the  same)  of  thy  favour  and 
goodness  towards  us." 


1552. 

1.  "he  hath  instituted  and 
ordained  holy  mysteries,  as 
pledges  of  his  love  and  [and  for 
a,  in  Ed.  of  1662]  continual  re- 
membrance of  his  death  to  our 
great  and  endless  comfort ;  " 


2.  "  Grant  that  we,  receiving 
these  thy  creatures  of  bread  and 
wine,  according  to  thy  Son  our 
Saviour  Jesus    Christ's  holy  in- 
stitution, in  remembrance  of  his 
death   and  passion,  may  be  par- 
takers of  his  most  blessed  Body 
and  Blood." 

3.  "...  beseeching  thee,  that 
all  we  who  are  partakers  of  this 
Holy  Communion,  may   be  ful- 
filled with  thy  grace  and  heavenly 
benediction." 

4.  "...  so  to  eat  the  flesh  of 
thy  dear  Son  Jesus  Christ  and  to 
drink  his  Blood." 

5.  "  .  .  .  dost  vouchsafe  to 
feed  us  which  have  duly  received 
these  holy  mysteries  with  the 
spiritual  food  of  the  most  precious 
Body  and  Blood  of  thy  Son  our 
Saviour  Jesus  Christ,  and  dost 
assure  us  thereby  of  thy  favour 
and  goodness  towards  us." 


409 

The  following  portion  of  a  Rubric  of  1549  was  omitted  in 
1552  :— 

6.  "  And  men  must  not  think  less  to  be  received  in  part,  than  in 
the  whole,  but  in  each  of  them  the  whole  body  of  our  Saviour  Jesu 
Christ." 

Now  to  say — that  the  changes  made  in  the  first  Five  pas- 
sages do  not  appear  to  me  to  exclude  the  doctrine  which  Mr. 
Goode  says  they  "  might  seem  to  indicate  "  would  be  merely 
to  set  my  own  *  opinion  (uselessly  to  say  the  least)  in  opposi- 
tion to  his.  It  is  much  preferable  therefore  to  refer  to  the 
citations  already  tendered  at  pp.  33-35  in  proof  that,  at  the 
time  of  the  publication  of  the  2nd  Book  of  Edw.  Vlth,  these 
changes  were  not  designed  or  regarded  in  the  sense  which 
Mr.  Goode  attaches  to  them.  And  this  is,  I  think,  materially 
supported  by  the  evidence  that,  whatever  Doctrine  was  taught 
by  it,  the  omitted  portion  of  the  Rubric  of  1549  (No.  6)  was 
distinctly  maintained  by  Abp.  Cranmer  when  he  prepared  the 
revised  Book  of  1552.  For  in  his  Answer  to  Bp.  Gardiner, 
published  at  that  particular  time,  he  quotes  this  very  Rubric 
(See  p.  22)  remarking  that  "  although  it  say,  that  in  each 
part  of  the  bread  broken  is  received  the  whole  body  of  Christ, 

*  But  it  may  be  useful  to  quote  the  following  opinion  of  Mr.  Fisher — "  Re- 
formatio  in  Anglia  ob  rem  Sacramentariam  obtineri  nequit :  —  We  have  quoted 
these  memorable  words,  in  order  to  shew,  what  was  the  opinion  of  a  foreign 
divine  [Peter  Martyr],  highly  distinguished  for  learning  as  well  as  piety  .... 
respecting  the  progress  which  the  Protestant  movement  had  already  made  in 
England  at  the  time  when  Edward  the  Sixth's  second  Prayer  Book  was  enacted 

The  '•res  Sacramentaria'  of  the   Anglican  Establishment  is  not  to  be 

considered  now,  as  it  was  in  the  sixteenth  century,  a  mere  impediment  to  the 
progressive  advance  of  Protestant  Principles.  On  the  contrary,  it  is  confessedly 
the  very  life  and  soul  of  a  vigorous  retrogressive  movement  within  the  Church 
.  .  .  ."— Liturgical  Purity.,  p.  151. 


-       .- 

rituum  ecclesiasticorum  atque  administrations  sacramentorum  est  emendatus,  nam 

inde  omnia  sublata  sunt  qua  super  stitionem  fovere  poterant'  (Letter,  ed.  by 
Goode,  p.  15.)  But  then  it  appears  from  the  context,  that  he  is  here  alluding 
to  certain  errors  of  the  Communion  Office  which  the  Primate  himself  had  but 
recently  repudiated,  and  which  had  been,  on  that  account,  very  carefully 
removed  from  the  Prayer  Book  upon  its  second  revision  in  1552."—  Lit.  Pur. 


ipudiated1 

G  G  G 


410 

yet  it  saith  not  so  of  the  parts  unbroken,  nor  yet  of  the  parts 

or  whole  reserved,  as  the  Papists  teach we  be  as  truly 

fed,  refreshed,  and  comforted  by  Christ,  receiving  a  piece  of 
bread  at  the  Lord's  holy  table,  as  if  we  did  eat  an  whole  loaf. 
For  ....  whole  Christ  and  the  Holy  Spirit,  sacramentally, 
.  .be.  .in  every  part  of  the  bread  broken,  but  not  corporally 
and  naturally,  as  the  Papists  teach." 

The  noticeable  thing  in  these  words  is  the  marked  con- 
nexion which  the  Abp.  makes  between  the  breaking  of  the 
bread  and  the  presence  of  "whole  Christ. ..  .in  every" 
such  "part  of"  it:  and  this,  to  say  the  least,  involves  an 
objective  presence  in  what  "  is  received,"  not  merely  a  subjec- 
tive presence  in  the  receiver :  but  as  the  fraction  of  the  bread 
is  a  formal  part  of  the  act  of  Consecration,  it  seems  to  me  to 
follow  from  Cranmer's  own  reasoning — that  the  Presence 
exists  in  the  Sacramentum  before  the  Communion  of  the 
Priest;  therefore  irrespective  of  the  Communion  of  the 
People  :  and  this,  I  must  think,  admits  the  whole  Doctrine  of 
a  Real  Objective  Presence,  due  to  Consecration,  in  with  or 
under  the  Elements.  In  the  words  of  Bp.  Cosin  : — 

"  So,  then,  (to  sum  up  this  controversy  by  applying  to  it  all  that 
hath  been  said,)  it  is  not  questioned  whether  the  Body  of  Christ  be 

alludes:  and  it  seems  to  me  that  "the  context",  which  Mr.  Fisher  refers  to, 
sustains  my  objection;  for  P.  Martyr  (after  saying,  as  above  quoted,  "  that  the 
Book  or  Order  of  Ecclesiastical  Eites  and  the  Administration  of  the  Sacraments 
is  reformed,  for  all  things  are  removed  from  it  which  could  nourish  super- 
stition") adds — "But  the  chief  reason  why  other  things  which  were  purposed 
were  not  effected,  was  that  the  subject  of  the  Sacraments  stood  in  the  way;  not 
truly  as  far  as  regards  transubstantiation  or  the  real  presence  (so 
to  speak),  either  in  the  bread  or  in  the  wine,  since,  thanks  be  to  God,  concerning 
these  things  there  seems  to  be  now  no  controversy  as  it  regards  those  who  profess 
the  Gospel ;  but  whether  grace  is  conferred  by  virtue  of  the  Sacraments,  is  a 
point  about  which  many  are  in  doubt." — Gorham's  lief.  Gleanings,  p.  281. 

It  can  scarcely  be  doubted  (especially  recollecting  the  terminology  of  that 
period  already  so  fully  examined  in  these  pages)  that  P.  Martyr  means  here  by 
real*  a  carnal  presence,  whether  or  not  in  this  place  he  only  employs  the 
word  as  the  equivalent  of  Transubstantiation.  And,  as  I  have  already  proved,  I 
think,  (in  the  passages  referred  to,  Note,  p.  381)  that  Cranmer  had  distinctly 
abandoned  this  doctrine  of  a  carnal  presence  before  the  publication  of  the 
1st  Book  in  1549 ;  so,  therefore,  the  change  of  language  in  the  Communion  Office 
of  1552  could  not  have  been  "on  that  account,"  as  Mr.  Fisher  says:  the 
alteration  only  goes  to  prove  the  identity  of  doctrine  in  the  two  Books  on  this 
point ;  though  verbal  changes  were  admitted  to  content,  apparently,  those  who 
feared  that  certain  expressions  in  the  1st  Book  might  still  be  quoted  as  favouring 
(what  I  may  call)  popular  Roman  belief. 


411 

absent  from  the  Sacrament  duly  administered  according  to  His  insti- 
tution, which  we  protestants  neither  affirm  nor  believe  ;  for,  it  being 
given  and  received  in  the  communion,  it  must  needs  be  that  it  is 
present,  though  in  some  manner  veiled  under  the  sacrament,  so  that 
of  itself  it  cannot  be  seen.  Neither  is  it  doubted  or  disputed  whether 
the  bread  and  wine,  by  the  power  of  God  and  a  supernatural  virtue, 
be  set  apart  and  fitted  for  a  much  nobler  use,  and  raised  to  a  higher 
dignity,  than  their  nature  bears  ;  for  we  confess  the  necessity  of  a 
supernatural  and  heavenly  change,  and  that  the  signs  cannot  become 
sacraments  but  by  the  infinite  power  of  God,  whose  proper  right  it 
is  to  institute  sacraments  in  His  Church,  being  able  alone  to  endue 
them  with  virtue  and  efficacy.  Finally,  we  do  not  say  that  our 
blessed  Saviour  gave  only  the  figure  and  sign  of  His  Body,  neither 
do  we  deny  a  sacramental  union  of  the  Body  and  Blood  of  Christ 
with  the  sacred  bread  and  wine,  so  that  both  are  really  and  Substan- 
tially received  together  ;  but  (that  we  may  avoid  all  ambiguity)  we 
deny  that,  after  the  words  and  prayer  of  consecration,  the  bread  should 
remain  bread  no  longer,  but  should  be  changed  into  the  substance 
of  the  Body  of  Christ,  nothing  of  the  bread  but  only  the  accidents 
continuing  to  be  what  they  were  before.  And  so  the  whole  question 
is  concerning  the  transubstantiation  of  the  outward  elements,  whether 
the  substance  of  the  bread  be  turned  into  the  substance  of  Christ's 
Body,  and  the  substance  of  the  wine  into  the  substance  of  His 
Blood ;  or,  as  the  Romish  doctors  describe  their  transubstantiation, 
whether  the  substance  of  bread  and  wine  doth  utterly  perish,  and 
the  substance  of  Christ's  Body  and  Blood  succeed  in  their  place, 
which  are  both  denied  by  protestants." — Hist,  of  Transubstantiation* 
Ch.  iv.  §  6.  Oxford  Trans,  p.  175. 

There  remains  to  be  further  noticed  one  other  point  which 
was  mentioned  in  the  Letter  at  p.  70,  viz.  the  statement  of 
the  Bishops  in  1661 — that  there  was  not  "  any  great  need  of 
restoring  "  the  Declaration  on  Kneeling,  "  the  world  being 
now  in  more  danger  of  profanation  than  of  idolatry ;"  and 
the  opinion  which,  evidently,  they  were  also  careful  to  ex- 
press at  the  same  time — that  "  the  sense  of  it  is  declared 
sufficiently  in  the  28th  Article  of  the  Church  of  England." 
It  will  be  well  to  consider  how  that  "sense,"  then,  "is 
declared  "  there.  An  analysis  of  the  Declaration  shews  that 
it  mainly  contains  Four  Propositions  which  correspond  with 
the  Four  Clauses  of  the  Article ;  this  will  be  best  seen  by 
placing  them  in  parallel  columns  thus  : — 


412 


DECLARATION. 

1.  "...  it  is  ordained  in  this 
office  .  .  .  that  the  communicants 
should      receive  ....  kneeling  ; 
(which  order  is  well  meant,  for  a 
signification  of  our  humble  and 
grateful  acknowledgement  of  the 
benefits  of  Christ  therein  given 
to  all  worthy  Receivers  .  .  .)" 

2.  "  It  is  hereby  declared,  That 
thereby  no  adoration  is  intended, 
or  ought  to  be  done,  unto   the 
Sacramental  Bread  or  Wine  there 
bodily  received." 

3.  "For  the  Sacramental  Bread 
and  Wine  remain   still  in    their 
very    natural     substances,     and 
therefore   may   not   be    adored; 
(for   that   were  Idolatry,   to   be 
abhorred    of  all    faithful   Chris- 
tians ;)" 


4. "[... no  adoration  is  intended, 
or  ought  to  be  done,]  .  .  .  unto 
any  Corporal  Presence  of  Christ's 
natural  Flesh  and  Blood.  For 
.  .  .  the  natural  Body  and  Blood 
of  our  Saviour  Christ  are  in 
Heaven  and  not  here  ;" 


ARTICLE  xxvm. 

Clause  1 .  "  .  .  .  to  such  as 
rightly,  worthily,  and  with  faith, 
receive  the  same  [signum  or 
sacramentum],  the  Bread  which 
we  break  is  a  partaking  [commun- 
icatio]  of  the  Body  of  Christ; 
and  likewise  the  Cup  of  Blessing 
is  a  partaking  [communicatio~\  of 
the  Blood  of  Christ." 

Clause  4.  "The  Sacrament 
[Sacramentum]  of  the  Lord's 
Supper  was  not  by  Christ's  ordi- 
nance ....  worshipped." 

Clause  2.  "  Tran substantiation 
(or  the  change  of  the  substance  of 
Bread  and  Wine)  in  the  Supper 
of  the  Lord,  cannot  be  proved  by 
Holy  Writ ;  but  it  is  repugnant 
to  the  plain  words  of  Scripture, 
overthroweth  the  nature  of  a 
Sacrament,  and  hath  given  occa- 
sion to  many  superstitions." 

Clause  3.  "The  Body  of 
Christ  is  given,  taken,  and  eaten, 
in  the  Supper,  only  after  an 
heavenly  and  spiritual  manner. 
And  the  mean  whereby  the 
Body  of  Christ  is  received  and 
eaten  in  the  Supper  is  Faith." 


Now  of  these  Four  Clauses  the  2nd  and  4th  give  "  the 
sense  "  in  which  the  Bishops  thought  the  Declaration  no 
longer  needed  as  a  Protest  and  Safeguard  touching  Practice  : 
for  they  "  declared  "  against  "  the  change  of  the  substance 
of  Bread  and  Wine  "  and  therefore  "  sufficiently "  against 
that  "  adoration  "  of  the  Sacramentum  which  the  Declaration 
said  "  were  Idolatry  to  be  abhorred  of  all  faithful  Christians." 
The  1st  and  3rd  Clauses  describe  the  "sign,"  the  "manner," 
and  the  "  mean  "  of  the  communication  of  the  Body  and  Blood 
of  Christ;  all  three  necessarily  excluding  "any  Corporal 
Presence  of  Christ's  natural  Flesh  and  Blood,"  as  the  Decla- 


413 

ration  said,  "  unto  "  which  "  adoration  is  intended  or  ought 
to  be  done ;  "  not  because,  like  "  the  Sacramental  Bread  and 
Wine,"  It  is  not  adorable,  but  because  It  is  not  there  to  be 
adored. 

But  this  question  now  arises — Whether  these  exclusive 
terms  of  the  Article  are  not  necessarily  inclusive,  or  do  not 
admit,  of  a  "  sense"  which  does  not  contradict  them  :  whether 
in  fact  they  do  not  imply  and  assume  an  Objective  Presence 
quite  as  Substantial  and  Real,  though  Spiritual  and  In- 
visible ? 

The  Article,  using  the  language  of  St.  Paul  (1  Cor.  x, 
16,)  distinctly  connects  Koivuna  =  the  imparting  of  the  Res 
Sacramenti  ("  the  inward  part  or  thing  signified  " )  with  the 
Bread  broken  and  the  Cup  blessed — it  declares  that  each  "  is 
a  partaking  "  or  ((  a  communion  "  (as  in  the  English  Article 
of  1 552)  of  What  it  signifies :  that  they  have  become,  by  that 
Consecrating  action,  the  Vehicle  carrying  the  Gift  of  the 
Body  and  Blood  of  Christ;  and  not  merely,  in  Legal  lan- 
guage, the  Deed  conveying  It — a  term  utterly  inadequate 
to  express  and  wholly  foreign  from  the  idea  of  receiving 
"  the  Supper  of  the  Lord  "  of  which  the  Article  treats.  It 
follows,  therefore,  that  (to  say  the  very  least)  the  Gift  is 
present  with  the  Sign  at  the  time  that  Sign  is  given*  to  "such 

*  Compare  the  following  passage  of  a  Letter  from  Calvin  to  Bullinger,  dated 
Geneva,  June  26,  1548."  ...  we  say  that  that  which  is  figured  by  them  [Sa- 
craments] is  exhibited  to  the  Elect ;  lest  God  should  be  believed  to  mock  our 
eyes  with  a  fallacious  sight  .....     When,  in  the  Supper,  the  signs  of  the  flesh 
and  blood  of  Christ  are  held  out  [porrigi — JEd.~\  to  us,  we  say,  that  they  are  not 
held  out  in  vain  so  that  the  Thing  itself  also  is  not  actually  before  us  [Res  nobis 
ipsa  constet.—  Ed.~\     Whence  it  follows  that  we  eat  the  flesh  and  drink  the 
blood  of  Christ." 

But  it  might  be  thought  one-sided  not  to  add  what  follows :  he  goes  on  to  say 
— "  Thus  expressing  ourselves,  we  neither  make  the  thing  out  of  the  Sign ;  nor 
do  we  confound  each  of  them  in  one ;  nor  again  do  we  imagine  that  it  is  * 
infinite  [?  without  limits — Editor}  ;  nor  do  we  dream  of  a  carnal  transfusion  of 
Christ  into  us ;  nor  do  we  lay  down  any  other  such  fancy. 

"  You  say,  that  Christ  is  in  Heaven  as  regards  His  human  nature  :  we  ac- 
knowledge the  same. — The  word,  heaven,  conveys  to  your  ears  the  impression 
of  distance  of  place :  we,  also,  willingly  embrace  that  [opinion— Ed.] ;  that 
Christ  is  at  a  distance  from  us  by  the  interval  of  places. — You  deny  that  the 
body  of  Christ  is  without  limits ;  but  [affirm — Ed.~\  that  it  is  contained  within 

*  Editor's  Note. — "Infinitum  esse  fingimus  "  the  sentence  seems  a  little  obscure,  but  pro- 
bably alludes  to  the  Ubiquitarian  doctrine  of  Brentius,  the  unlimited  diffusion  of  the  Body 
of  Christ." 


414 

as  "  under  the  conditions  named  "  receive  the  same  ; "  and 
being  so  present  to  these,  how  can  It  be  otherwise  than  pre- 
sent before  all  others  who  are  where  they  are  ?  What  is  this 
but  an  Objective  Presence  whether  men  have  Faith  to  discern 
it  or  not?  If,  then,  such  a  Presence  be  recognized  in,  what 
I  may  call,  the  donative  act  of  "  The  Administration;  "  need 
there  be  or  is  there  any  real  difficulty  in  recognizing  a  like 
Presence  in,  with,  or  under  "  the  Communion  "  before  "  the 
Minister  first  receive"  It  ((  himself  "  or  "proceed  to  deliver 
the  same  to  "  others  ?  It  cannot  be  said  there  is  not,  for 
the  very  fact  of  the  controversy  proves  the  contrary ;  but  it 
is  hard  to  see  why  the  difficulty  should  exist. 

If  what  has  been  now  said  does  not  inaccurately  represent 
the  meaning  of  the  28th  Article  (as  I  hope  and  believe  it 
does  not)  then,  on  the  dictum  of  the  Bishops  at  the  Savoy  Con- 
ference, this  is  "  the  sense  "  of  the  Declaration  on  Kneeling ; 
and  therefore  that  Declaration  does  not  forbid  but  allows  the 
belief  of  a  Real  Objective  Presence  of  the  Body  and  Blood 
of  Christ  in  the  Eucharist,  and  consequently  the  Adoration 
of  Christ  as  so  Present.  I  do  not  say  it  defines  whether  that 
Presence  is  "in  the  Supper,"  as  some  express  it;  or,  as  Abp. 
Cranmer  (its  Author)  appears  to  have  held,  "in  the  forms  of 
bread  and  wine  [in  but  not]  out  of  the  ministration  "  (See  p. 

its  own  circumference :  we  assent ;  aye,  and  we,  undisguisedly  and  openly, 
declare  this. — You  deny  that  the  Sign  is  to  be  mingled  with  the  Thing  :  we 
diligently  inculcate  that  the  one  is  to  be  distinguished  from  the  other. — You 
sharply  condemn  [the  notion  of — EdJ\  impanation  :  we  subscribe  [to  your 
decision— Ed.~\.—  To  what,  then,  does  our  opinion  amount?  [To  this.— Ed.] 
Since  here  upon  earth  we  see  Bread  and  Wine,  [we  hold. — Ed.]  that  our  minds 
are  to  be  lifted  up  into  heaven,  that  we  may  enjoy  Christ ;  and  that  then  Christ 
is  present  to  us,  when  we  seek  Him  above  the  elements  of  this  world.  For  it  is 
not  permitted  us  to  suspect  that  Christ  is  deceiving  us ;  which  would  be  the 
case,  unless  we  hold  that  truth  is  exhibited  to  us  together  with  the  Sign  :  and 
even  you  yourselves  allow  that  the  Sign  is  by  no  means  an  empty  one.  It 
remains  only  for  us  to  define  what  it  contains.  To  this  we  briefly  answer : — 
We  are  made  partakers  of  the  flesh  and  blood  of  Christ,  so  that  He  dwells  in  us 
and  we  in  Him,  and  in  this  way  enjoy  all  His  good  things.  I  ask,  what  is  there 
either  absurd  or  obscure  in  these  expressions  ?  especially  since  we  exclude,  in 
express  words,  whatever  wild  imaginations  might  enter  the  mind.  And  yet  we 
are  severely  criticised,  as  though  we  had  departed  from  the  simple  and  pure 
doctrine  of  the  Gospel.  But  I  should  like  to  know,  What  is  that  simplicity  to 
which  we  are  challenged  to  return  ?  .  .  .  ." — Gorham's  Reformation  Gleanings. 
London.  1857.  p.  49. 


415 

:  nor  do  I  assert  that  it  compels  a  belief  in  either  of 
these  modes.  But  I  do  humbly  and  respectfully  maintain, 
and  I  venture  to  think  that  the  foregoing  pages  have  proved — 
That,  as  the  language  of  the  Declaration  does  not  exclude  the 
belief  which  I  have  endeavoured  to  shew  is  also  consonant 
with  the  28th  Article,  so  every  member  of  the  Church  of 
JEngland  is  entirely  free  to  hold  it  and  every  Minister  free  to 
teach  it,  "  provided  "  only  (as  I  said  at  the  outset  of  this 
Letter,  p.  4)  they  do  not  thereby  intentionally  "  involve  that 
Doctrine  which,  I  allege,  was  disavowed  in  the  Declaration." 

If  it  be  feared,  as  Mr.  Goode  and  others  seem  to  fear,  that 
such  a  belief  tends  to  make  us  so  localize  the  Presence  of 
Christ  on  earth  as  to  hinder  us  from  raising  our  thoughts  to 
Him  in  Heaven:  if,  as  he  tells  us,  (Work,  p.  451)  <s  the 
Fathers  constantly "  are  "  admonishing  us  that  t  he  who 
approaches  to  this  body  must  have  his  mind  aloft ;  '  that 
'  we  have  our  victim  above,  our  priest  above,  our  sacrifice 
above/  *  and  that  Christ  is  '  absent '  in  heaven,  and  only  to 
be  laid  hold  of  by  faith :" — it  seems  to  me  enough  to  say, 
That  the  permissive  belief  for  which  I  am  contending  no 
more  involves  the  dreaded  consequence  than  does  any  belief 
of  the  Substantial  Presence  of  the  Sun  in  this  earth  of  ours 
hinder  us  from  that  lifting  of  our  thoughts  to  the  Glorious 
Luminary  as  he  shines  above,  which  I  suppose  is  an  instinc- 
tive feeling  of  every  man  who  sees  his  Light  or  feels  his 
Heat.  It  may  assist  also  in  calming  such  fears,  to  recollect 
that  Bp.  Latimer  once  said  (See  p.  41)  "  We  do  worship 
Christ  in  the  Heavens,  and  we  do  worship  Him  in  the  Sacra- 
ment." 

This  (I  fear  too-lengthened)  Postscript  being  now  com- 
pleted, it  is  necessary  to  sum  up  the  result  of  both  it  and  the 
Letter ;  and  this  will,  I  think,  be  most  conveniently  done  in 
the  following  Nine  Propositions  : — 

*  A  lay  friend  noticing,  after  they  were  printed  off,  the  following  words  of 
Eobert  i^amuel  (See  p.  188)  "there  now  making  intercessien,  offering  and 
giving  his  holy  body  for  me,  for  my  body,  for  my  ransom,  for  my  full  price  and 
satisfaction,"  saya  "might  not  this  be  italicized  as  expressing  an  important 
doctrine — ihejuge  sacrificium  ?" 


416 

1.  That  a  (1)  Carnal  (or  Capernaical)  belief  on 

the  Real  Presence,  which  it  was  (2)  con- 
sidered necessary  to  disperse,  prevailed 
extensively  among  (3)  Clergy  and  (4)  Laity 
in  the  middle  of  the  16th  Century. 

Bp.  Shaxton's  Recantation  Articles  1546,  p.  5.  (1) — Stat.  Edw. 
vi.,  c.  i.,  p.  6.  (1.  2.  3.  4.) — Conversation  between  Cranmer  and 
Bonner,  Sep.  10,  1549,  p.  6  :  Argument  pp.  7,  9  :  The  Lord  Paget's 
opinion  of  Bp.  Gardiner's  Doctrine,  p.  28.  (1) — Articles  ministered 
by  Bp.  Hooper  to  Will.  Phelps,  1551,  p.  30.  (1.  2.  3.)— Conference 
in  the  Tower  between  Bp.  Ridley  and  Sec.  Bourn,  1553,  p.  39: 
Disputation  at  Oxford,  Ap.  18,  1554, p.  39:  Exam,  of  J.  Rogers, 
1554-5,  p.  42.  (1) — Cranmer's  Ans.  to  Gardiner,  p.  181.  (1.  2.  3.) 
— Argument  from  Jewel  v.  Harding,  p.  250.  (1.  2.  3.) — Jewel's 
"Defence  of  the  Apology."  Note  264.  (1.  3.) 

2.  That,  as  this  belief  (1)  mainly  though  (2) 

not  entirely  resulted  from  the  popular 
Doctrine  of  Transubstantiation  so,  (3)  a 
continuous  effort  was  made  to  suppress 
that  Doctrine. 

Bp.  Shaxton's  Recantation  Articles,  No.  1,  p.  5  (1) — P.  Martyr's 
Disput.  at  Oxford,  June  11,  1549,  pp.  10  to  13.  (1.  3.) — 1st  Dispu- 
tation at  Cambridge,  June  20,  1549  :  2nd  Disputation,  June  24, 
1549:  3rd  Disputation:  Bp.  Ridley's  Determination  of  them 
p.  18.  (1.  3.) — Cranmer's  Ans.  to  Gardiner,  p.  25.  (1.  3) — Bp. 
Hooper's  Visitation  Articles  1551-2,  p.  30.  (1.  3.) — Assertion  of 
the  Sacrament  by  J.  Winter,  Nov.  8.  1551.  p.  31.  (1.  3.)— Article 
xxix.  1552,  and  Argument,  p.  32.  (1.3.)— Argument,  p.  38  :  Archdn. 
Philpot,  Disp.  at  Lond.  Oct.  18,  1553,  p.  38  :  Examn.  of  J.  Brad- 
ford, Jan.  29,  1554-5,  p.  41  :  Conference  between  Ridley  and 
Latimer,  1555,  p.  42  :  Ridley's  "  Brief  declaration  of  the  Lord's 
Supper,"  1555,  p.  43  :  Cranmer's  Disput.  at  Oxford,  Ap.  16.  1555  : 
Ridley's  Disput.  at  Oxford,  1555,  p.  52.  (1)— Cranmer's  Letter  to 
Calvin  on  Council  of  Trent,  March  20,  1552,  p.  90  :  Arguments 
thereon,  pp.  91  to  92.  (1.  3.) — Kriox's  Objections  to  Kneeling,  pp. 
104-8.  (1.  2.  3.) — Art.  xxix.  of  1553,  and  Mr.  Hardwick's  remarks 
thereon,  pp.  110  and  111  (1.  3.). — Cranmer's  account  of  opinion  of 
Luther  &c.  Note  p.  168.  (1). — Opinion  held  by  Cranmer  and  others 
between  1545  and  1548,  pp.  275  to  278.  (1.  2.  3.)— Bucer's  Letter 
to  Niger,  Ap.  15,  1550.  Note  p.  403.  (1.) 


417 

3.  That,  in  doing  this,  there  was  no  intention 

to  deny  or  discourage  a  belief  in  the  Real 
Objective  Presence  of  the  Body  and  Blood 
of  Christ,  in  the  Ministration  of  the  Sacra- 
ment or  under  the  Form  of  Bread  and 
Wine,  if  such  Presence  was  not  held  to  be 
Natural  or  OrganicaL 

Foxe's  opinion  of  P.  Martyr's  Disputation  at  Oxford,  June  11. 
1549,  p.  9. — Argument,  p.  10. —  Cranmer's  opinion  of  Bertram's 
Doctrine,  p.  20 — Cranmer's  Answer  to  Gardiner,  pp.  20  to  26. — 
Dr.  Redman's  communication  to  R.  Wilkes  and  Master  Nowel, 
Nov.  1551,  pp.  28,  29. — Young's  Letter  to  Cheke  concerning  Dr. 
Redman,  p.  29. — Articles  against  Bp.  Ferrar,  1553-4,  p.  37. — 
Comparison  of  terms,  p.  62. — Argument  between  Cranmer  and 
Gardiner  on  the  presence  of  the  Sun,  pp.  73  to  75. — Cranmer's 
Letter  to  P.  Council,  Oct.  7.  1552.  pp.  77  to  79. — Argument 
thereon,  pp.  79  to  84. — Foxe's  Estimate  of  Cranmer's  opinion,  p. 
84. — Cranmer's  language  as  to  Consecration,  pp.  85  to  89. — Cran- 
mer's Belief  compared  with  Calvin's,  Note  pp.  86  to  87. — Argument 
from  Bp.  Hooper's  Articles  of  1551-2,  p.  119. — Cranmer's  language 
as  to  Presence  in  the  Ministration,  p.  125. — Cranmer's  Catechism, 
1548,  p.  154. — Argument  therefrom,  pp.  15^-9,  and  from  Horn,  of 
1547,  pp.  160  to  168.— Gardiner's  opinion  of  P.  Book  of  1549,p.  173. 
— Cranmer's  definition  of  Corporal  p.  177  ;  his  language  to  Gardiner, 
pp.  180  to  186. — Ridley's  Exam,  at  Oxford,  Sep.  30,  1555,  p.  186. 
— Ans.  of  two  "husbandmen"  to  Bp.  Bonner,  May  22.  1555,  p. 
187. — Letter  of  Rob.  Samuel  Aug.  31,  1555,  p.  188.— Jewel's  con- 
troversy with  Harding,  pp.  267  to  269. — Reformed  Primers  1545  to 
1559.— Bucer's  Letter  to  P.  Martyr,  June  20,  1549,  Note  pp.  398 
to  402. — Bucer's  Letter  to  Niger,  Ap.  15.  1550.  Note  p.  401. — P. 
Martyr's  "  Confession  of  the  Lord's  Supper,"  &c.,  May  1556. 
Note  p.  402. 

4.  That  the  (1)  Doctrine  of  the  Real  Objective 

Presence  was  Authoritatively  taught  in 
1549  ;  and  that  (2)  the  same  Doctrine  was 
also  Authoritatively  taught  during  the  rest 
of  the  Reign  of  King  Edward  Vlth. 

HHU 


418 

Letter  of  Duke  of  Somerset  to  Cardinal  Pole,  June  4,  1549,  p.  7. 
(1) — Argument  from  Bp.  Gardiner,  p.  9.  (1)  — Bp.  Gardiner's  "  Long 
Matter  Justificatory,"  1550-1,  p.  26.  (1) — Articles  exhibited  by 
Bp,  Gardiner,  Jan.  21,  1550-1,  p.  27  (1.  2.) — Testimony  of  John 
White,  Feb.  20,  1550-1,  p.  27  (1)— Argument,  p.  32  :  Act  of  Uni- 
formity, 1552:  Statement  of  Bp.  Latimer,  1554:  Argument  and 
Note  p.  35.  (2.) — Argument  pp.  121  to  122:  examination  of  Mr. 
Goode's  comparison  of  the  P.  Books  of  1549  and  1552,  pp.  409  to 
410.  (1.  2.) 

5.  That,  when  (1)  in  1552  objections  were  made 

to  that  Rubric  of  the  new  Prayer  Book 
which  enjoined  Kneeling  at  reception  of 
the  Sacrament,  (2)  the  Declaration  explain- 
ing it  was  framed  in  conformity  with  the 
considerations  advanced  in  these  four  Pro- 
positions ;  and  that,  consequently,  (3)  the 
words  "real  and  essential"  were  not  meant 
to  be  a  denial  of  that  Real  Presence  men- 
tioned in  Proposition  3. 

Argument  pp.  36,  73  (1. 2. 3.) — Letter  of  Utenhovius  to  Bullinger, 
Oct.  12,  1552,  p.  93  :  Note  in  Co.  Book,  Oct.  20,  1552,  p.  96  : 
Exam,  of  Knox  by  P.  Council,  1553  p.  97  (1) — character  of  the 
Ld.  Chancellor,  Bp.  Goodrick  p.  98  :  Weston's  language  as  to 
(prob.)  Knox,  in  1554:  —  Foxe's  remark  on  Weston's  words,  p.  102 
(1.  2.) — apparent  ground  of  Knox's  objection  pp.  104  to  108.(1) — 
Argument  pp.  113  to  118  (1.  2.)— Argument  from  Cranmer's  Letter 
p.  119  (3.) 

6.  That  the  (1)  omission  of  the  Declaration  from 

the  Prayer  Book  of  1559  (though  it  seems 
to  have  been  still  in  (2)  some  way  Authori- 
tatively used)  together  with  (3)  other  Pro- 
ceedings, (4)  especially  the  Revision  of  the 
Articles,  in  the  Reign  of  Queen  Elizabeth, 
is  evidence  of  (5)  a  purpose  then  to  avoid 
any  appearance  of  denying  that  doctrine. 


419 

Bp.  Burnet's  account  of  the  omission,  p.  63  :  Collier's  account, 
p.  64  (1.  5.) — Kneeling  not  left  indifferent,  as  proposed  by  Guest, 
p.  64  :  refusal  to  Puritans  to  prostrate  themselves,  pp.  65  and  393  : 
direction  for  Wafer  Bread  p.  65  :  Grindal's  Dialogue,  p.  66  :  -ZElfric's 
Anglo-Saxon  Homily,  p.  68,  (3.  5.)—  Omission  of  Sec.  3,  in  Art. 
xxix.  of  1552  (4.  5.) — Bp.  Burnet's  account  of  revision  of  Art.  28  : 
Mr.  Harold  Browne's  opinion  of  it,  pp.  189  to  191  (4.  5.)— Letter 
from  Grindal  &c.  Feb.  6,  1566-7  :  Mr.  Fisher's  opinion  of  P.  Book 
1559  (2.  3.  5.)— Bp.  Guest's  Letter  to  Cecil,  Dec.  22,  1566  p.  192  ; 
2nd  Letter,  May  1571,  pp.  195  to  204:  Argument  thereon,  pp. 
205  to  235  (3.  4.  5.) — Bp.  Jewel's  controversy  with  Harding  ;  and 
Arguments  thereon,  pp.  235  to  250  (3.  5.) — Argument  from  New 
Ed.  of  Homilies  and  from  Reformed  Primer,  pp.  264  to  283  (3.  5.) 

7.  That  this  recognition  of  the  Doctrine  of  the 

Real  Presence  was  not  withdrawn,  but  was 
supported  by  such  Eucharistic  (1)  Docu- 
ments and  (2)  Statements  as  were  put  forth 
by  Ecclesiastical  Authority,  from  the  death 
of  Elizabeth  until  the  Restoration. 

Bp.  Overall's  additions  to  the  Catechism ;  Mr.  Fisher's  opinion 
of  them,  p.  283  to  284  :  Irish  Articles,  1615,  p.  285  (1). — Ans.  of 
Bps  at  Savoy  Conference,  1661,  pp.  70,  307  (2). — Can.  vii.,  1640, 
p.  386  (1.) 

8.  That  (1)  the  Revision  of  the  Order  of  the 

Holy  Communion  in  1662,  (2)  the  known 
Opinions  of  the  Leading  Reviewers,  and 
(3)  the  circumstances  connected  with  the 
re-insertion  of  the  Declaration  then — (4) 
all  concur  to  prove  a  continued  acceptance 
of  that  Doctrine. 

Non-conformist  objection  to  Kneeling  and  demand  for  re-insertion 
of  Declaration,  p.  70  :  refusal  and  ultimate  consent  of  the  Bishops, 
p.  70  :  change  of  words  "  real  and  essential  "  at  Bp.  Gunning's  in- 
stigation, p.  70  :  probable  opinion  of  Gawden,  p.  72,  (3.  4.)— Argu- 
ment on  Rubrics  in  Communion  Office  of  1662,  p.  122  to  152,  (I.  4.) 
— Bp.  Cosin,  effect  of  Consecration,  p.  137-9,  150.  (2.  4.) — Bp. 
Gauden's  "  Tears,  Sighs,"  &c.  pp.  303-5  :  his  "  Counsell  ...  to 
xliv.  Presbyters,"  &c.  p.  305.  (2.  4.) — Bp's.  defence  of  Kneeling, 


420 

at  Savoy  Conf.,  p.  307  (1.  4.) — Argument,  pp.  307  to  9  (1.  2. 3. 4.) 
— Bp.  Gauden's  "Whole  duty  of  a  Communicant,"  &c.;  and  Argu- 
ment therefrom,  pp.  310  to  322.  (2.  4.)— Bp.  Morley's  Argument 
against  Transubstantiation  ;  and  his  references  to  Bp.  Morton,  pp. 
323  to  329  (2.  4.) — Heylin's  account  of  changes  in  Com.  Service, 
p.  330  (2.  4.) — Bp.  Cosin's  Hist,  of  Transub.  c.  3  ;  and  Argu- 
ment therefrom,  pp.  331  to  337  (2)— Mr.  Fisher's  opinion  of  the 
design  in  alteration  of*'  real  and  essential,"  Note,  p.  337.  (3.) — Bp. 
Cosin's  Hist  of  Transub.  c.  4,  p.  410  (2.4.) — Comparison  of  Decla- 
ration and  Art.  xxviii,  suggested  by  the  Bps.  at  the  Savoy  Con- 
ference, and  Argument  thereon,  pp.  411  to  415  (3.4.) 

9.  That  therefore,  as  the  previous  Propositions 
combine  to  shew,  (1)  both  forms  of  the 
Declaration  had  the  same  meaning;  and 
that  meaning  is  entirely  consistent  with 
the  (2)  Belief  in,  and  the  (3)  Practice  of 
Adoration  to,  Christ  Really  though  Spirit- 
ually present  in  the  Eucharist  under  the 
Form  of  Bread  and  Wine. 

Argument,  pp.  3  and  4  (1.  2.  3) — Argument,  pp.  338  to  355  (2) 
— Opinion  of  Mr.  Harold  Browne,  Note  p.  355  (2) — Argument 
from  Mr.  Goode's  citations  from  Abraham  Woodhead,  pp.  361  to 
379  (2.  3) — Examination  of  Mr.  Goode's  comment  on  Dr.  Pusey's 
reference  to  Rubric  on  remains  of  Sacrament,  pp.  380  to  383  :  Argu- 
ment, pp.  383  to  384  (2) — Speech  of  Abp.  Laud,  June  14,  1637, 
pp.  388  to  390  (2.  3) — Laud's  controversy  with  Fisher,  pp.  390 
to  393  (2) — Argument  from  Puritan  proposal  for  Prostration  at  the 
Sacrament  p.  395  (2.  3) — Argument  from  the  nature  of  Sacramental 
Union  pp.  396  to  407  (2). 

These  Nine  Propositions  may  themselves  be  advantage- 
ously summed  up  in  the  following  Statement : — 

That  the  leading  English  Reformers  (even  in 
in  their  latest  days)  together  with  those  Suc- 
cessors down  to  the  early  part  of  the  17th 
Century  who,  like  themselves,  were  mainly 
responsible  for  the  Authorized  Books  which 


421 

declared  the  belief  of  the  Church  of  England — 
intended  no  denial  of  the  Real  Presence  and  of 
Eucharistic  Adoration — and,  That  the  Caroline 
Revisers  were  careful  to  alter  or  eliminate 
those  expressions  which,  however  erroneously, 
had  been,  or  might  be  likely  to  be,  held  to 
involve  such  a  denial. 


In  a  Note  at  p.  248  I  drew  attention  to  some  of  Mr. 
Freeman's  language  on  the  nature  of  the  Presence,  and  com- 
pared it  with  Bp.  Jewel's  notice  of  an  apparently  similar 
theory  broached  (for  the  first  time  as  he  thought)  by  Hard- 
ing ;  expressing  also  a  hope  that  in  the  then  expected 
Volume  some  explanation  would  be  given  of  the  opinion 
propounded  by  Mr.  Freeman.  That  Volume  has  now 
appeared,  and  in  it  Mr.  F.  re-affirms  his  former  statements ; 
for  in  a  Note,  at  p.  479,  he  says : — 

"  It  has  been  abundantly  demonstrated  in  the  Introduction  to 
this  volume,  that  in  the  view  of  antiquity,  and  of  the  English  Church, 
the  consecrated  Elements  are,  in  a  profoundly  mysterious  but  most  true 
sense,  the  Body  and  Blood  of  Christ ;  but  nevertheless,  as  not  being 
identified  with  Christ  Himself,  nor  containing  Him  personally,  are 
not  objects  of  Divine  worship.  The  latter  part  of  this  position  has 
been  of  late  years,  with  some  variety  as  to  expression,  but  on  the 
whole  to  the  same  effect,  disallowed  by  some  among  us.  It  may  be 
necessary,  therefore,  to  say  a  few  words  in  vindication  of  it." 

Now  my  object  in  these  pages  has  been  to  shew  what  is 
(f  the  view  ...  of  the  English  Church  "  in  reference  to  the 
Eucharistic  Presence  and  its  legitimate  consequences,  as 
defined  in  the  Declaration  on  Kneeling :  I  have  assumed 
throughout,  as  there  is  every  ground  for  doing,  that  that 
view  was  designed  to  be  and  is  "  the  view  of  antiquity." 
Yet,  so  far  as  any  evidence  is  furnished  by  the  Authorities 
here  cited,  the  testimony  seems  to  me  to  prove  the  novelty 


and  not  the  antiquity  of  Mr.  Freeman's  theory  which  severs 
the  Presence  of  CHRIST  from  the  Presence  of  the  BODY  and 
BLOOD  of  Christ  "with"  "the  consecrated  Elements;"  for 
I  presume  this  to  be  the  sense  in  which  he  uses  the  word 
"  identified,"  and  also  to  be  the  ground  on  which  he  alleges 
their  not  "containing  Him  personally."  This  separation  he 
assigns  as  the  reason  for  their  being  t(  not  objects  of  Divine 
worship."  But,  assuming  for  argument's  sake  the  truth  of 
the  proposition  which  Mr.  Freeman  denies,  would  "  the  con- 
secrated Elements"  be  objects  of  such  worship  even  then? 
It  seems  to  me  that  what  has  been  already  said  at  p.  395 
furnishes  an  authoritative  reply  in  the  negative :  while  a 
consideration  of  Abp.  Cranmer's  great  fears  (mentioned  at 
pp.  90  and  113) — that  the  Tridentine  decree  would  result  in 
Divine  worship  (latria)  of  the  Elements,  instead  of  that 
inferior  honour  (dulia)  which  Bp.  Eidley  said  was  to  be 
accorded — shews  that  on  no  theory  short  of  Transubstan- 
tiation  could  the  claim  of  this  worship  be  made  and  allowed; 
though  it  must  not  be  forgotten  that  as  defenders  of  even 
that  doctrine  repudiate  any  Divine  Worship  being  given  to 
the  Accidents,  we  have  no  right  to  fasten  it  upon  them  as 
though  it  were  an  inevitable  consequence  of  their  belief. 

But  Mr.  Freeman  asserts  that  "the  latter  part  of  this 
position "  of  his  "  has  been  of  late  years,  .  .  .  disallowed  by 
some  among  us  ;"  this,  then,  seems  to  me,  in  effect,  accusing 
them  of  holding  that  very  Roman  doctrine  which  (unless  I 
mistake  the  persons  to  whom  he  alludes)  they  are  careful  to 
deny.  In  support,  however,  of  his  allegation  he  offers  "  a 
simple  statement  of  the  fearful  language — it  is  impossible  " 
he  says,  "  to  characterize  it  otherwise — which  the  upholders 
of  "  the  Doctrine  he  speaks  of  "  have,  by  the  necessity  of  their 
position,  been  driven  to  use.  One  of  the  most  learned  of 
them,"  he  states,  "yet  no  intentional  fautor  of  Roman  views, 
has  declared  that  he  considers  that  the  same  worship  is  due 
to  the  Elements  as  to  the  Blessed  Trinity."  Mr.  Freeman 
should,  however,  have  remembered  the  inconvenience  of  thus 


423 

making  a  charge  without  clearly  indicating  the  person  and 
the  passage  to  which  he  refers.  As  it  is,  one  can  only  vaguely 
guess  to  whom  and  to  what  he  alludes.  Possibly,  then,  he 
may  refer  to  Dr.  Pusey :  though,  so  far  from  his  writings  on 
the  Eucharist  containing  any  statement  which  warrants  the 
ahove  representation,  no  words  could  well  contradict  it  more 
plainly  than  those  he  has  again  and  again  employed  in  his 
latest  publication— "  The  Real  Presence"  &c.,  1857  ;  to  shew 
this,  it  is  amply  sufficient  to  quote  the  two  following  running 
titles  ;  p.  316,  "  To  adore  Christ  present,  is  not  to  adore  the 
Sacrament-"  and,  p.  336,  "  We  adore,  not  the  Sacrament,  but 
our  Redeemer."  Strangely  enough  Mr.  Goode  (Supp.  p.  33) 
makes  a  very  similar  indirect  charge  in  the  sentence  already 
quoted  at  p.  395 ;  and  says  of  a  passage  which  he  cites  from 
Dr.  Pusey  (p.  329,  "  People  have  profanely  spoken  of  '  wafer- 
gods.'  They  might  as  well  have  spoken  of  '  fire-gods,'  of  the 
manifestation  of  God  in  the  flaming  fire  in  the  bush  "  &c.) — 
"  According  to  this  doctrine,  then,  as  the  Second  Person  of 
the  adorable  Trinity  was  connected  with  the  human  nature 
in  the  person  of  Jesus  Christ,  so  is  Christ  with  the  wafer  in 
the  Sacrament."  Yet  an  obvious  exception  to  the  accuracy 
of  this  assertion  is,  That  it  ignores  the  words  of  the  Second 
Article  of  the  Church  of  England — "  the  Godhead  and 
Manhood,  were  joined  together  in  one  Person,  never  to  be 
divided " — and  keeps  out  of  sight  the  fact,  That  no  one 
alleges  a  permanent  Union  of  the  Sacramentum  and  the  Res 
Sacramenti;  and  that  even  Roman  Theologians  admit  the 
cessation  of  the  Presence  when  the  Accidents  become  cor- 
rupt. 

If,  however,  the  Author  of  "  Eucharistical  Adoration  "  be 
pointed  at  in  Mr.  Freeman's  remark  which  I  am  here  no- 
ticing ;  it  is  enough  to  reply — that  Mr.  Keble  says  (p.  58 — 
2nd  Ed.  1859)  "  no  plain  and  devout  reader  of  Holy  Scrip- 
ture and  disciple  of  the  Church  would,  of  his  own  accord, 
find  a  difficulty  in  adoring  the  thing  signified,  apart  from  the 
outward  sign  or  form  ;"  again,  the  running  title  of  p.  151  is 


424 

"  Adoration  claimed  for  the  Inward  Part  only  "  and  further 
in  noticing  (p.  152)  a  comment  made  upon  Art.  xxviii.,  he 
says  "  Is  not  this  expressly  maintaining  that  the  worship  of 
the  outward  part  is  the  only  worship  forbidden  (if  it  be  for- 
bidden) in  that  Article?":  where  the  parenthetical  expres- 
sion "  if  it  be  forbidden  "  plainly  means — that  that  point  is 
probably  beside  the  purpose  of  the  Article. 

But  perhaps  the  reference  is  to  Mr.  Cheyne  who,  in  his 
"  Reasons  of  Appeal "  1858,  gives  an  Appendix  on  the 
"  Declaration  concerning  Kneeling  "  where  he  says  (p.  64) 
"  We  are  enjoined  to  receive  the  Blessed  Sacrament  of  our 
Lord's  Body  and  Blood,  in  that  very  manner,  and  with  that 
very  act,  which  denotes  the  highest  degree  of  worship — the 
worship  which  we  pay  to  the  Blessed  Trinity,  Father,  Son, 
and  Holy  Ghost/'  But  then — going  on  to  defend  Eucharistic 
Adoration  and  remarking  (p.  56)  "If,  then,  as  Bishop 
Andrews  says,  the  Body  and  Blood  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ 
be  there,  and  Those  not  without  His  Soul,  nor  That  without 
His  Deity,  and  if  we  are  then  directed  to  use  the  same  gesture 
which  we  use  in  the  worship  of  Almighty  God,  what  can 
the  simple-minded  suppose,  but  that  which  loving  faith 
would  dictate,  that  we  worship  Christ,  Whom  we  are  about 
to  receive  " — Mr.  Cheyne  proceeds  to  make  this  very  explicit 
statement  which,  it  seems  to  me,  puts  his  meaning  beyond 
all  doubt :  his  words  are  "  The  Declaration  tells  us  what  our 
act  of  adoration  is  not  directed  to.  It  is  not  directed  to  the 
Bread  and  Wine.  The  Appellant  never  said  that  it  was  ;  he 
said  on  the  contrary  that  it  is  not — '  we  do  not  kneel  to  the 
outward  signs ' — we  do  not  worship  them.  Neither  do  we 
worship  (it  says)  any  '  corporal  presence  of  Christ's  natural 
Flesh  and  Blood.'  The  Appellant  never  said  that  we  do. 
His  words  do  not  imply  anything  of  the  sort.  '  We  kneel  to 
the  Lord  Himself  invisibly  present,  under  the  form  of  bread 
and  wine,'  or,  as  Sherlock  says,  '  under  the  species  of  bread 
and  wine.' ' 

Mr.  Freeman's  second  witness  is  thus  exhibited : — "  Another 


425 

Writing  to  a  newspaper,  says,  '  It  is  difficult,  of  course,  for 
one  to  believe  that  yonder  piece  of  Bread  is  my  God;  but  I 
am  bound  to  believe  it.' ''  Here,  again,  not  the  slightest 
hint  is  given  where  the  sentence  may  be  found  ;  not,  indeed, 
that  it  is  of  much  importance  to  notice  in  a  discussion  of 
this  subject  the  incautious  language  of  a  Newspaper  Corres- 
pondent ;  though  it  may  be  remarked  that,  supposing  he 
had  substituted  for  "  my  God  "  the  words  "  the  Body  and 
Blood  of  Christ,"  many  who  hold  Them  to  be  Christ  would 
complain  of  language  which  nevertheless  could  be  technically 
justified  by  Mr.  Freeman's  own  theory. 

The  third  example  is  given  thus : — (c  Another  eminent 
person,  and  of  high  rank  in  the  Church,  affirms  that  Divine 
worship  is  indeed  due  to  Christ,  as  contained,  as  God  and 
man,  under  the  Elements ;  but  recommends  moderation  in 
offering  that  Worship ;  in  which  he  considers  that  the  Con- 
tinental Churches  run  into  excess.  Excess  in  worshipping 
and  adoring  God  Almighty  !  "  This,  I  presume,  must  refer 
to  the  Bp.  of  Brechin,  and  perhaps  to  that  passage  of  his 
Lordship's  Charge  which  I  have  quoted  at  p.  334:  .whether 
Mr.  Freeman's  paraphrase  quite  represents  it  may  easily  be 
judged  by  a  comparison. 

But  the  writer  goes  on  to  say  : — 

"  When  grave  divines  of  the  English  Church  find  themselves 
carried  into  positions  such  as  these,  it  must  be  obvious,  even  to 
themselves,  that  there  is  a  mistake  somewhere.  Nor  is  there  in 
reality  any  escape  from  the  admission  of  all  mediaeval  and  Roman 
eucharistic  doctrine  with  respect  to  the  Eucharist,  otherwise  than  by 
falling  back  upon  the  truth,  that  the  Elements  while  they  are,  as 
the  Scripture  assures  us,  the  Body  and  Blood  of  Christ,  still  are  not, 
as  the  Scripture  nowhere  affirms  they  are,  Christ  Himself  " 

The  observation  which  naturally  presents  itself  to  the 
beginning  of  this  passage  is — That  if  Mr.  Freeman  has,  as  I 
believe  he  has,  himself  forcibly  "  carried "  these  divines 
"  into  positions "  which  they  had  not  and  have  not  any 
intention  of  willingly  occupying,  the  only  thing,  one  would 

ill 


426 

think,  which  "  must  be  obvious,  even  to  themselves  "  is,  that 
the  "  mistake  "  lies  with  him  who  has  thus  thrust  them  out 
of  the  position  which  they  claim  to  be  their  own.  More- 
over, it  seems  to  me  that,  Mr.  Freeman  has  himself  used 
language  which,  at  least,  goes  some  way  towards  convicting 
him  of  having  made  a  mistake  in  asserting  that  Doctrine, 
which  he  repeats  at  the  close  of  the  above  passage,  to  be 
"  the  truth.91  Thus,  at  p.  15,  he  says  :— 

"  .  .  .  it  may  safely  be  laid  down,  that  the  one  great  and  ruling 
purpose  of  all  sacrifice  was,  to  restore  to  man  by  degrees,  and  ulti- 
mately to  enhance  immeasurably,  his  original  capacity  for  enduring 
and  enjoying  the  Divine  Presence ;  and  to  furnish  a  medium  for 
acceptable*  presentation  in  It.  We  shall  find  that  an  ever-increasing 
measure  of  that  Presence,  joined  to  proportionately  enlarged  methods 
of  safe  and  beatifying  access  to  it,  characterize  the  whole  history  of 
Sacrifice  and  Priesthood." 

When,  then,  Mr.  Freeman,  speaking  of  the  "memorial 
offering  "  of  the  Church,  says  (p.  198)  "  One  intervention  of 
her  High-Priest  sends  up  her  Eucharistic  Gift  to  God  in 
Christ,  and  brings  down  Christ,  her  Eucharistic  Food,  from 
God,"  he  appears  to  me  to  point  out  that  the  Christian 
Sacrifice  furnishes  the  full  "  measure  "  of  and  the  completely 
"safe  and  beatifying  access  to"  the  "Divine  Presence;"  and 
further  that  that  Presence  is  the  Presence  of  "  Christ  Him- 
self "  in  that  "Eucharistic  Food"  which  is  His  "Body  arid 
Blood." 

Moreover,  Mr.  Freeman  seems  to  me  to  correct  his  own 
theory  by  "  the  reason  "  which  (at  p.  19)  he  mentions  "  as  to 
the  cause  of  God's  withdrawing  His  indwelling,  or  rather  the 
original  measure  of  it,  from  man  and  creation  at  the  fall ; " 
he  says : — 

"  .  .  .  it  is  to  be  found  in  the  condition  of  Death  into  which  man, 
and  all  creation  with  him,  had  now  fallen  .  .  This  plainly  appears 
from  various  sacrificial  provisions  of  the  old  law,  ....  hut  above 
all,  from  that  shrinking  from,  and  loathing  of  Death,  as  such,  which 
was  doubtless  a  chief  ingredient  in  the  Agony  of  Christ.  This 
detestation  of  Death,  on  the  part  of  the  Divine  Nature,  extends,  as 
it  should  seem,  to  all  the  processes  and  phenomena  of  it ;  and  to 


the  dissolution  of  any  living  or  even  inanimate  organism.  The 
exact  disqualification,  therefore,  which  had  to  be  removed  by  sacri- 
fice was  this  deathlike  and  deadly  condition  in  all  its  degrees  and 
effects,  as  well  as  in  its  ultimate  and  highest  manifestation,  namely, 
the  permanent  and  eternal  dissociation  of  the  body  and  soul  of  man." 

But  then  it  would  seern  likely  that  this  Divine  abhorrence 
of  "the  condition  of  Death  "  is  precisely  a  reason  why  that 
Sacrifice,  which  was  effectually  to  remove  the  "  disqualifica- 
tion "  for  God's  renewed  "  indwelling  "  with  His  creatures, 
should  not  present  this  "  deathlike "  aspect :  and  it  may 
have  been  from  some  such  view  of  the  case  that  Mr.  Free- 
man says  (p.  27)  : — 

*'  This  Death  alone,  accordingly,  had  no  offensiveness  in  the  sight 
of  God,  as  not  being  directly  the  work  of  the  Devil  or  of  sin,  but 
springing  solely  from  the  acquiescence  of  a  perfectly  Holy  Being. 
In  accordance  wherewith  it  alone  was  unaccompanied  by  any  cor- 
ruption The  dissolution  of  that  Soul  and  Body  was  an  operation 
as  pure  and  holy  as  the  joining  together  of  Adam's  soul  and  body, 
or  of  His  Own  at  His  Conception  by  the  Holy  Ghost.  The  Death 
was  pure,  because  the  Subject  of  it  was  innocent." 

Yet  this  theory,  however  true  in  itself,  looks  inconsistent 
with  a  statement,  in  the  passage  last  quoted, — that  the  Divine 
"  detestation  of  Death  ....  extends  ....  to  all  the  pro- 
cesses and  phenomena  of  it " — one  of  which  is  there  said  to 
be  the  "  dissociation  of  the  body  and  soul  of  man."  Perhaps, 
therefore,  it  may  the  rather  be  that  the  absence  of  "  offen- 
siveness in  the  sight  of  God,"  when  beholding  the  Death  of 
Christ,  was  due  to  the  materially  different  aspect  which  was 
presented  by  the  separation  of  His  Soul  and  Body  as  com- 
pared with  the  like  separation  in  the  case  of  all  other  men  : 
for,  though  the  Soul  of  the  Man  Christ  Jesus  was  in  Hades 
and  His  Body  in  the  Tomb,  the  conjunction  of  Deity  with 
Both  held  Them  in  a  state  of  union  and  a  condition  of  re- 
union which  is  untrue  of  every  other  separated  soul  and  body. 

And  if,  as  would  seem  likely  to  be  the  case,  the  perpetual 
presentation  of  that  Sacrifice  in  the  Heavenly  Court  manifests 
It  in  a  character  pleasing  to  the  Divine  Father ;  then  the 
Apocalyptic  vision  of  It  certainly  makes  It  instinct  with 


4-28 

Life,  though  not  hiding  the  feature  which  betokens  Death : 
"  I  beheld,  and  lo,  in  the  midst  of  the  throne  and  of  the  four 
beasts,  and  in  the  midst  of  the  elders,  stood  *  a  Lamb,  as  it 
had  been  slain  "  (Rev.  v.  6.) ;  and  again  (xiv.  1)  "  I  looked, 
and,  lo,  a  Lamb  stood  on  the  mount  Sion,  and  with  him  an 
hundred  forty  and  four  thousand,  having  his  Father's  name 
written  in  their  foreheads." 

It  follows  therefore,  I  think,  that  the  Memorial  re-presen- 
tation on  the  Church's  Earthly  Altars  of  Christ's  "one 
oblation  of  Himself  once  offered,"  must  be  no  less  free  from 
any  cause  of  "  offensiveness "  which  would  render  it  un- 
acceptable "  in  the  sight  of  God  "  than  is  the  Eternal  High 
Priest's  continual  Offering  above  with  Which  It  is  united: 
hence,  then,  an  apparent  necessity  that  What  is  thus  pre- 
sented in  Eucharists  to  the  Eternal  Father  should  not  be  in 
that  "deadly  condition"  of  "  dissociation  "  which  seems 
more  than  implied  in  Mr.  Freeman's  statement  "  that  the 
Elements,  while  they  are,  ....  the  Body  and  Blood  of 
Christ,  still  are  not,  ....  Christ  Himself." 

In  saying  this  I  am  not  unmindful  of  what  he  has  written 
at  pp.  207 — 9  "  as  to  the  sense  in  which  Christ  presents 
continually  in  Heaven  His  Sacrifice  of  Himself."  He 
argues — 

"  That  in  some  true  sense  He  does  so,  were  it  only  in  the  sense 
of  pleading  it,  all  must  allow.  But  we  are  nowhere  told  in  Holy 
Scripture  that  He  actually  and  literally  carried  the  Sacrifice  of  His 
broken  Body  and  poured-out  Blood,  by  a  local  translation,  into  the 
Heavenly  Places.  When  He  gave  Himself  at  the  last  Supper,  and 
when  He  was  offered  on  the  Cross  :  the  Sacrifice  abode  still,  locally, 
upon  earth." 

But  this  sounds  like  making  "the  Sacrifice"  an  idea,  a 
mere  abstraction,  something  separate  from  Him  who  gave 
Himself  to  be  the  Sacrifice;  and  so  it  is  very  much  like 
speaking  of  "a  local  translation  "  of  Christ's  Will  and  Inten- 

*  STANDING  (i.e.  in  its  natural  living  position :  ....  it  was  not  lying,  but 
standing)  AS  IP  SLAIN  (i.e.  retaining  the  appearance  of  death-wounds  on  its 
body  :  looking  as  if  it  had  been  slain  .  .  .  .)"—£ean  Alford,  in  loc. 


429 

tion  in  offering  Himself.  Surely  there  was  no  need  of  our 
being  "  told  "  that  "  the  Sacrifice  of  His  broken  Body  and 
poured-out  Blood  "  was  "  actually  and  literally  carried  .  .  . 
into  the  Heavenly  Places,"  when  we  are  told  (Heb.  ix.  24) 
that  "  Christ/'  Who  showed  His  pierced  Hands  and  wounded 
Side  to  the  Apostles,  "  is "  really  "  entered  into  heaven 
itself,  now  to  appear  in  the  presence  of  God  for  us  "  by  "  a 
local  translation"  of  His  Body  Which  was  sacrificed.  Indeed 
Mr.  Freeman  seems  to  anticipate  some  such  objection  as  this, 
for  he  goes  on  to  say  : — 

"  When  He  ascended  to  Heaven,  it  was  as  Risen,  and  with  a  re- 
united Body,  Soul,  and  Spirit.  And  though  it  is  said,  in  the  Reve- 
lation, that  there  appeared  in  the  midst  of  the  Throne  a  '  Lamb  as 
it  had  been  slain,'  the  language  is  qualified,  meaning  apparently  *  as 
if  it  had  once  been  pierced  or  slain  :'  and  the  context  refers  to  the 
Sacrifice  as  a  past  event ;  '  Thou  wast  slain,  and  didst  redeem  us 
unto  God  by  Thy  Blood.'  " 

No  doubt  it  does  ;  yet  this  seems  only  consistent  with 
that  display  of  life  in  death)  already  noticed,  which  made 
Christ's  death  not  obnoxious  to  God  as  was  the  death  of  all 
others  :  it  appears,  moreover,  to  point  to  that  aspect  of  the 
Incarnation  which  rendered  a  God-man  the  only  possible 
Being  Who  could  die  to  satisfy  Divine  justice,  yet  not  fall 
under  the  dominion  of  that  very  Death  (i.e.  destruction), 
which  His  Own  death  was  designed  to  destroy.  Hence, 
perhaps,  those  words  of  our  Lord  touching  His  Own  life 
(S.  John  x.  18) — "I  have  power  to  lay  it  down,  and  I  have 
power  to  take  it  again  ;"  hence,  too,  the  especial  recommen- 
dation and  acceptableness  of  that  Voluntary  Offering  for  sin 
(ver.  17) — "  Therefore  doth  My  Father  love  me,  because  I 
lay  down  my  life,  that  I  might  take  it  again  ;"  hence,  further, 
it  may  well  be,  that  triumphant  announcement  of  Himself  to 
the  beloved  Apostle  in  the  very  opening  of  the  Apocalyptic 
vision  (Rev.  i.  18) — "I  am  He  that  liveth,  and  was  dead  ; 
and,  behold,  I  am  alive  for  evermore,  Amen  ;  and  have  the 
keys  of  hell  and  death." 

To  support,  however,  his  opinion  of  the  non-local  transla- 


430 

tion  of  the  Sacrifice,  Mr.  Freeman  suggests  "  with  caution  " 
that— 

"  [It]  is  in  Heaven,  in  the  sense  in  which  the  Mosaic  burnt- offering 
entered  into  the  Holy  place  by  means  of  the  incense  at  the  time  of 
its  offering,  and  by  the  personal  appearance  there  of  the  High  Priest 
once  a  year It  is  as  borne  upon  the  Incense  of  His  Inter- 
cession, and  as  presented  evermore  in  a  mystery  in  His  Holy  Hands, 
not  locally,  that  the  once  broken  Body  and  poured-out  Blood  of  the 
Sacrifice  is  pleaded.  So  the  sprinkling  of  His  Blood  towards  the 
True  Mercy  Seat,  which,  from  the  analogy  of  the  Mosaic  scheme, 
doubtless  took  place  in  some  sense,  would  seem  to  have  been  ac- 
complished, though  really,  in  mystery  only,  not  physically  or  locally. 
And  accordingly  St.  Paul  does  not  say  it  was  with  His  own  Blood, 
but  '  by  it,'  that  He  entered  in  once  into  the  Holy  Place." 

But,  perhaps,  the  consideration — that  Christ  is  at  once  the 
Eternal  High  Priest  and  the  Ever-living  Sacrifice — meets 
this  and  any  kindred  difficulty  arising  out  of  the  pursuit  of 
an  exact  analogy  between  the  Type  and  the  Anti-type ;  and 
so,  His  corresponding  local  entrance  as  High  Priest  to  plead 
the  shedding  of  "  His  own  Blood,"  when  He  "suffered  with- 
out the  gate  "  in  order  "  that  He  might  sanctify  the  people 
with"  It  (Heb.  xiii.  12),  need  not  interfere  with  the  idea 
that,  being  "  burned  without  the  camp  "  by  the  consuming  fire 
of  God's  anger  which  He  resolved  to  appease,  He  could  not  in 
that  condition  come  "into  Heaven  itself;"  any  more  than 
could  "  the  bodies  of  those  beasts,  whose  blood  is  brought 
into  the  sanctuary  by  the  high  priest  for  sin,"  have  "  entered 
into  the  holy  places  made  with  hands  :"  thus,  then,  there  was 
no  "  local  translation  "  of  What  in  Its  aspect  of  destruction 
was  a  Sacrifice  unpleasing  to  God ;  though  in  that  "  lifting 
up  of  "  Christ's  Hands,"  which  speaks  of  Life  while  yet  They 
bear  the  impress  of  Death,  there  is  the  ceaseless  Memorial 
that  (to  quote  the  words  which  Mr.  Freeman  cites  from  Bp. 
Andrews  as  favouring  his  own  view)  it  is  "  The  same  Body 
as  now,  but  not  the  Body  as  it  is  now."  And  the  fact 
embodied  in  this  sentence  seems  also  to  indicate  the  "sense" 
in  which  the  Blood  of  Christ  may  be  said  to  have  been  even 
"  physically  and  locally "  sprinkled  before  the  Heavenly 


431 

Mercy-Seat :  for,  remembering  carefully  the  Divine  declara- 
tion (Gen.  ix.  4)  "  the  life  ...  is  the  blood  "— as  when  the 
"  blood "  of  "  the  sin  offering,  .  .  .  for  the  people "  was 
brought  "  within  the  vail  "  by  the  High  Priest  to  "  sprinkle 
it  upon  the  mercy  seat,  and  before  the  mercy  seat,"  it  also 
made  "an  atonement  for  the  holy  place"  (Lev.  xvi.  15,  16)  ; 
so  when  Christ  Who  is  "  the  Life  "  came  as  High  Priest  f(  to 
appear  in  the  presence  of  God  for  us  "  He  did,  surely,  bear 
with  Him  thither  His  Own  Blood  by  Which,  too,  "the 
Heavenly  things  themselves  "  were  "  purified ;"  though  in- 
deed, it  was  by  virtue  of  that  Blood  before  shed,  that  He 
procured  and  claimed  admission  to  the  Celestial  Sanctuary. 

These  considerations  lead  me,  though  with  much  defer- 
ence, to  conclude  differently  from  Mr.  Freeman  when  he 
says  (p.  209)  :— 

"  Hence  no  inference  can  be  drawn,  as  has  been  attempted  of  late 
years,  to  the  effect  that  the  consecrated  Elements,  whether  separ- 
ately or  conjointly,  are  the  Living  and  Risen  Body  of  Christ.  What 
the  Living  and  Risen  Christ  presents  and  pleads  evermore  in 
Heaven,  is  His  mighty  wonder-working  DEATH,  undergone  ages 
ago  ;  .  .  .  And  so,  too,  what  the  Church  evermore  pleads  and 
presents,  is  His  Body  and  Blood,  such  as  they  were  when  the  One 
was  broken  and  the  Other  poured  forth  upon  the  Cross  ;  which 
condition  of  them  is  in  a  mystery  perpetuated  still :" — 

For,  if  "  the  voice  of  many  angels  round  about  the  throne 
and  the  beasts  and  the  elders"  (Rev.  v.  11)  inay,  as  perhaps 
it  may,  indicate  what  Christ  Himself  pleads  there,  then,  its 
sound  distinctly  mingles  the  two  ideas  of  Life  and  Death 
and  does  not  more  prominently,  much  less  solely,  speak  of 
Death — "  Worthy  is  the  Lamb  [i.e.  the  ever-living  Lamb] 
that  was  slain  to  receive  power,  and  riches,  and  wisdom,  and 
strength,  and  honour,  and  glory,  and  blessing  "  (ver.  12): 
and  if,  too,  the  echoing  voices  of  the  "  every  creature  which 
is  in  heaven,  and  on  earth,  and  under  the  earth,  and  such  as 
are  in  the  sea,  and  all  that  are  in  them  "  may  be  accounted 
as  the  thankful  expression  of  Redeemed  Creation  for  the 
Sacrifice  Which  restored  it,  then,  further,  it  corresponds  with 


that  same  idea ;  for  when  they  were  heard  saying  "  Blessing, 
and  honour,  and  glory,  and  power,  be  unto  Him  that  sitteth 
upon  the  throne,  and  unto  the  Lamb  for  ever  and  ever" 
(ver.  13),  we  seem  to  have  described  the  Church's  Gloria  in 
Excelsis  and  therein  the  pleading  and  presentation  of  that 
Memorial  Sacrifice  with  Which  it  is  united — the  living 
"  Lamb  of  God,  .  .  .  that  takest  away  the  sins  of  the  world, 
.  .  .  .  that  sittest  at  the  right  hand  of  God  the  Father" 
though  also  Eucharistically  re-presented  and  Eucharistically 
worshipped  ;  while  the  responsive  acknowledgment  of  and 
communion  with  It  still  resounds  (we  may  well  believe)  in 
the  Temple  above  (ver.  14) — "  the  four  beasts  said,  Amen. 
And  the  four  and  twenty  elders  fell  down  and  worshipped 
Him  that  liveth  for  ever  and  ever." 

Mr.  Freeman,  however,  in  this  Note  upon  which  I  am 
commenting,  proceeds  to  defend  himself  thus  (p.  480) : — 

"  And  while  the  doctrine  contended  for  [he  should  rather  have 
said,  to  be  accurate,  which  I  allege  to  be  contended  for]  labours 
under  these  weighty  objections,  1  am  not  aware  that  more  than  one 
objection  has  ever  been  brought  against  the  opposite  view  upheld  in 
the  pages.  It  is  said  that  if  the  Elements  are  the  Body  and  Blood 
of  Christ,  the  doctrine  of  the  Hvpostatic  Union  (or  of  the  insepar- 
able conjunction,  once  for  all,  of  the  Divine  and  Human  Natures  in 
the  One  Person  of  Christ)  obliges  us  to  believe  that  they  are  Christ 
Himself:  that  otherwise  we  divide  Christ  and  are  guilty  of  a  kind  of 
Nestorianism.  This  at  first  sight  looks  plausible :  but  it  will  not 
bear  the  slightest  examination.  To  uphold  it,  is  to  press  one 
mystery  to  the  utter  forgetfulness  of  another.  The  position  is,  that 
wherever  the  Body  of  Christ  is  present,  it  must,  for  the  reason  just 
stated,  be  so  present  as  to  be  an  object  of  worship.  This  is  the  exact 
point  contended  for.  But  the  defenders  of  it  themselves  are  not 
prepared  to  carry  it  out  to  its  legitimate  results.  Is  not,  (I  would 
ask,)  is  not  the  Church  the  Body  of  Christ  ?  and  that  in  a  most  true 
and  real  sense,  though  in  a  manner  perfectly  mysterious  to  us? 
They  cannot  deny  it.  Will  they  affirm,  then,  that  the  Church,  as 
being  Christ's  Body,  is  to  be  worshipped  ?  And  if  not,  why  the 
Elements  of  Bread  in  the  Eucharist,  as  being  that  Body  ?  " 

Now,  first  of  all,  I  would  observe — that,  however  allow- 
able as  a  piece  of  abstract  reasoning,  it  is  scarcely  justifiable 
to  raise  so  subtle  a  question  upon  the  groundless  assumption 


433 

(as  I  think  I  have  shewn  it  to  be)  that  the  School,  here  ap- 
parently referred  to,  advocate  Divine  worship  to  the 
"  Elements  of  Bread  in  the  Eucharist  as  being  "  the  "  Body  " 
of  Christ.  Yet,  if  the  pursuit  of  such  a  logical  consequence 
as  this,  on  so  confessedly  mysterious  a  matter,  is  to  be  in- 
sisted upon  as  a  necessary  result  of  applying  "  the  Doctrine 
of  the  Hypostatic  Union  "  to  the  subject  of  Christ's  Sacra- 
mental Presence,  it  might  be  some  answer  to  say — that  quite 
as  great  difficulties  could  be  raised  touching  that  Divine 
Union  and  Communion  with  the  Church,  which  we  must  be- 
lieve and  maintain  because  it  was  so  fully  and  plainly  set 
forth  by  our  Lord  in  His  last  discourse  with  His  disciples  (S. 
John  xiv. — xvii.) :  or,  again,  which  is  so  strikingly  expressed 
in  that  answer  of  "  the  Lord,"  from  Heaven,  to  Saul  the  first 
great  enemy  of  His  infant  Church  (Acts.  ix.  5)  "  I  am  Jesus 
whom  thou  persecutest :"  or,  once  more,  which  is  declared 
in  St.  Peter's  assurance  (2  S.  Pet.  i.  4)  that  there  "are  given 
unto  us  exceeding  great  and  precious  promises  :  that  by  these 
ye  might  be  partakers  of  the  Divine  nature." 

Yet,  as  it  is  not  impossible  to  furnish  explanations  on 
these  Scriptural  difficulties,  relating  to  the  Mystical  Body  of 
Christ,  provided  that  Reason  be  not  called  upon  to  invade 
the  Province  of  Faith  and  Mental  Demonstration  be  not  de- 
manded where  Moral  Vision  can  alone  be  accorded,  so, 
probably,  such  explanations  would  be  an  approach  towards 
meeting  the  question  which  Mr.  Freeman  here  starts :  it 
would  be  beyond  the  compass  and  beside  the  purpose  of 
these  pages  to  enter  upon  the  needful  length  of  such  an  in- 
tricate enquiry ;  here,  therefore,  it  must  suffice  to  say  that 
the  Revealed  FACT  of  Christ  dwelling  in  His  Church  is, 
surely,  the  reason  for  acknowledging  His  Presence  therein  ; 
and  so  is  the  very  ground  of  these  and  such  like  questions  or 
counsels  in  the  Apostolical  Epistles — (Rom.  xvi.  5.)  "  Greet 
the  Church,"  (1  Cor.  x.  32.)  "  Give  none  offence  ....  to 
the  Church  of  God,"  (xi.  22.)  "  Despise  ye  the  Church  of 
God?",  (vi.  15,  19.)  "  Know  ye  not  that  your  bodies  are  the 

K  K  K 


434 

members  of  Christ?  .  .  .  Know  ye  not  that  your  body  is  the 
temple  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  which  is  in  you?",  (1  S.  Peter 
ii.  17.)  "  Love  the  brotherhood." 

Moreover  it  might  be  a  perfectly  legitimate  enquiry — 
whether  some  of  these  expressions,  in  describing  "  a  manner 
perfectly  mysterious  to  us  "  whereby  "  the  Body  of  Christ  " 
is  present  on  Earth,  do  not  further  indicate  the  nature  of  the 
worship  due  to  It,  as  being  either  mental  or  moral  or  physical 
— modes  these  which,  perhaps,  are  not  wholly  inapplicable  to 
explain  the  kind  of  worship  due  as  Bp.  Ridley  said  (Seep. 
58)  to,  what  he  called,  "  the  external  Sacrament ;"  bearing  in 
mind,  of  course,  the  difference  between  Christ's  living 
Members  and  inorganic  Eucharistic  Elements.  If  it  should 
be  objected — that  Eucharistic  Adoration  cannot  be  com- 
pared with  such  a  worship  of  Christ's  Body  the  Church  as  is 
here  suggested,  because  the  latter  lacks  that  external  token 
of  worship,  vis.  the  prescribed  act  of  kneeling  which  the 
former  presents — it  may  be  replied — That,  though  both  are 
founded  upon  the  same  principle,  viz.  a  Presence  of  Christ, 
the  Eucharistic  Manifestation  of  it  may  well  have  a  different 
form  of  recognition,  seeing  that  it  is  diverse  from  His  exhi- 
bition of  Himself  in  His  members.  Though,  at  the  same 
time,  it  must  be  remembered  that  the  Mystical  Body  re- 
ceives the  greater  distinction,  the  recognition  being  avowedly 
or  intentionally  given  to  it ;  whereas,  in  the  case  of  the 
Sacramental  Body,  the  Kneeling  is  designedly  not  to  the 
Species  but  to  Christ  thereby  displayed  to  the  eye  of  faith. 

But,  further,  the  dilemma  on  which  Mr.  Freeman  apparently 
seeks  to  place  those  whom  he  is  opposing,  appears  to  me  to  be 
mainly  due  to  his  seeming  not  to  recognize  here,  argumenta- 
tively,  the  distinctive  characteristics  of  Christ's  Body  in  the 
three  various  aspects  under  which,  perhaps,  It  may  be,  not  inac- 
curately, regarded: — (1)  Its  local  corporal  Presence,  above; 
unclothed  and  in  Majestic  Session  at  the  Right  Hand  of  God 
the  Father ;  (2)  Its  sacramental  Presence,  below ;  clothed 
upon  yet  not  incorporated  or  commingled  with  the  substances 
of  the  Eucharistic  Elements  ;  (3)  Its  incorporation  with  our 


435 

fallen  frames,  which  are  thus  raised  to  their  true  dignity  in 
becoming  Christ's  Mystical  Body. — The  comparison  already 
drawn  (at  pp.  341-55),  between  the  Presence  of  the  Natural 
Sun  and  the  Presence  of  the  Sun  of  Righteousness,  may, 
perhaps,  suggest  modes  of  illustrating  the  relative  honour 
to  be  paid  to  Christ's  Body  under  these  Its  several  manifesta- 
tions. Mr.  F.  does,  indeed,  advert  to  a  distinction  of  Presence 
(and,  so  far,  impliedly  allows  a  difference  of  worship)  ;  for  he 
speaks  of  "  the  Body  of  Christ  in  its  Eucharistic  condition," 
when  reverting  just  afterwards  "  to  fearful  doctrinal  posi- 
tions," already  noticed,  as  a  reason  for  concluding  that  what 
he  considers  a  "  plausible  "  but  "  a  mistaken  inference  "  re- 
specting It  "  should  ex  animo  be  abandoned :"  yet  the 
inference  would  seem  to  be  his  own,  and  to  be  deduced 
from  the  imaginary  "position"  in  which  he  (of  course  unin- 
tentionally) places  others  by  writing  as  though  they  claimed 
the  same  kind  of  worship  for  the  Body  of  Christ  however 
as  well  as  "  wherever  "  present.  So,  too,  when  Mr.  F.  adds 
that  "  The  only  escape  there  is,  when  this  parallel  is 
pressed  upon  the  upholders  of  the  worship  of  the  Ele- 
ments, or  of  the  Body  of  Christ,  in  the  Eucharist,  is 
to  represent  that  the  Church  is  only  figuratively,  not 
really,  the  Body  of  Christ" — he  must  not  be  surprised  if 
in  this  instance  also  one  thinks  he  has  (unconsciously)  misre- 
presented those  to  whom  he  refers;  especially  as  the  only  clue 

he  gives,  in  saying  "  this  position, has  been  avowed 

by  the  most  eminent  and  most  universally  esteemed  of  the 
divines  in  question,"  affords  no  means  of  comparing  his  own 
language  with  that  of  which  he  complains.  It  is  indeed 
strange,  and  difficult  to  reconcile  with  controversial  fairness, 
that  he  should  persist  in  fixing  upon  others  results  which  he 
draws  from  their  belief;  yet  so  he  does  again  in  a  passage 
immediately  following ;  for  (p.  482)  assuming  it  to  be  held 
that  *•'  the  unreceived  Elements  demand  Divine  Worship,"  he 
asks  "must  not  this,  a  fortiori,  be  extended  to  the  communi- 
cant, who  receives  these  Elements,  and  who  is  further 
declared  to  be — which  the  Elements  are  not — '  one  with 


436 

Christ,  and  Christ  with  him?"  This  question  has  been 
partly  answered,  I  think,  in  what  has  been  already  said; 
I  can  now  only  again  remark  in  addition,  and  that  by  way  of 
counter  inquiry — First,  Who  is  it  that  demands  Divine  wor- 
ship for  the  Elements  ?  Next,  is  not  our  Sacramental  Union 
and  Communion  with  Christ  the  very  argument  for  that 
reverence,  i.e.  worship,  which  is  so  continually  insisted  upon 
as  due  from  us  to  both  our  own  bodies  and  to  the  bodies  of 
our  brethren  in  Christ  ? 

Exactly  the  same  misrepresentation  (I  do  not  mean  wilful) 
pervades  the  remaining  portion  of  his  Note  (p.  482)  where 
he  says  "  It  is  now  avowed  as  one  principal  purpose  of  the 
celebration  of  the  Holy  Eucharist,  to  be  present  simply  to 
offer  divine  worship  to  Christ  as  present  under  the  Elements  : 
that  is,  as  has  been  shewn  to  the  Elements  themselves."  To 
this  last  sentence  I  cannot  but  reply — that  it  seems  to  me 
Mr.  Freeman  has  entirely  failed  to  shew  any  such  identity  as 
he  here  alleges.  With  regard,  however,  to  the  former  part 
of  the  passage — though  incautious  or  exaggerated  language 
on  the  part  of  some  may  furnish  ground  for  warning  lest 
communion  should  be  neglected  or  superseded  by  the  advocacy 
of  worship — if  Mr.  F.  intends  to  deny  the  lawfulness  of  non- 
communicating  worship,  then  I  must  venture  respectfully  to 
differ  entirely  from  him  :  that  he  appears  to  do  so,  seems  to 
follow  from  his  asking  "  What  single  prayer  or  invocation 
has  the  English  Church,  at  any  rate,  provided  for  this  pur- 
pose ?  "  But  the  mere  absence  of  any  such  provision  would 
not  prove  the  illegality  of  such  worship  ;  to  establish  this  it 
would  be  necessary  to  shew  that  the  Service  itself,  either  in 
terms  or  by  clear  implication,  forbids  it ;  otherwise,  that  it  is 
contrary  to  some  Law  of  the  Church  elsewhere  recorded  : 
with  some  confidence  I  express  my  belief  that  not  only  no 
such  prohibition  can  be  gathered  from  either  source,  but 
that  the  Evidence  proves  the  contrary  :  this  is  not  the  place  to 
investigate  the  subject,*  yet  it  may  be  desirable  to  point  to 

*  But  I  may  be  permitted  here  again,  as  at  p.  326,  to  refer  to  a  Publication 
•where  it  is  discussed. 


437 

the  following  Rubrics  as  shewing  that  non-communicating 
attendance  of  "  the  faithful  "  was  designed  to  be  allowed : — 
"At  the  time  of  the  celebration  of  the  Communion,  the  Com- 
municants being  conveniently  placed  "  &c.,  "  Then  shall  the 
Priest  say  to  them  that  come  to  receive  "  &c.,  "  Then  shall 
this  general  Confession  be  made,  in  the  name  of  all  those 
that  are  minded  to  receive  "  &c.,  "  Then  shall  the  Priest,  . 
.  .  .  say  in  the  name  of  all  them  that  shall  receive"  &c., 
"  Then  shall  the  Priest  say  the  Lord's  Prayer,  the  people 
[not  merely  the  Communicants']  repeating  after  him  every 
petition."  To  these  may  be  added  the  Rubric  directing  the 
consumption  of  the  remains  of  the  Sacrament  by  "  the  Priest 
and  such  other  of  the  Communicants  as  he  shall  then  call 
unto  him  " — an  order  which  would  be  wholly  superfluous  if 
none  but  Communicants  might  be  present  during  that  por- 
tion of  the  Service  from  which,  by  a  comparatively  modern 
custom,  non-communicants  usually  withdraw. 

I  presume,  however,  that  Mr.  Freeman  objects,  to  non- 
communicating  attendance  for  worship,  on  another  ground 
than  that  of  the  non-provision  of  "  prayer  or  invocation ;" 
for,  at  p.  278  he  writes  thus  : — 

"  Another  remark  is,  that  among  the  results  of  this  investigation 
we  cannot  reckon  the  faintest  trace  or  intimation  of  any  worship  to 
be  paid  to  a  sacrifice.  This  is  indisputable.  The  worship  is  through- 
out presented  by  means  of  the  sacrifice,  not  directed  to  it.  There 
is  no  countenance  then,  from  this  quarter  at  least,  for  the  mediaeval 
opinion,  lately  re-introduced  by  some  earnest  minds  among  us,  that 
the  supreme  purpose,  or,  however,  a  very  principal  one,  of  the 
Eucharist,  is  to  provide  in  the  ordained  media  of  the  rite, — the  con- 
secrated Elements, — an  object  of  Divine  Worship.  However  in- 
feniously  it  has  been  endeavoured  to  invoke  the  countenance  of 
'athers  and  liturgies  to  such  a  view,  it  would  seem  absolutely  fatal 
to  it,  that  the  ancient  sacrificial  system,  Divinely  accredited  to  us  as 
an  exact  type  or  copy  of  the  Gospel  scheme,  gives  not  the  remotest 
hint  of  such  a  feature  as  destined  to  have  place  in  it." 

Without,  however,  meaning  to  use  the  expedient  of  endea- 
vouring to  refute  an  Author's  statements  by  other  passages  in 
his  writings  when  he  was  in  the  same  mental  phase  (  a  resort 
always  of  questionable  value  unless  there  can  be  no  reason- 
able doubt  of  his  whole  mind  having  been  fairly  grasped)  I  can- 


438 

not  but  compare  what  Mr.  Freeman  here  says,  with  a  remark 
which  he  has  elsewhere  made  in  the  same  Volume  ;  because 
it  seems  to  me  to  furnish  ground  for  modifying  the  conclusion 
at  which  he  has  here  arrived :  thus,  at  p.  4,  after  observing 
of  "  the  Holy  Eucharist "  that  "  by  the  distinct  intimation  of 
our  Lord  Himself,  its  nature  was  to  be  ascertained  by 
reference  to  a  system  in  itself  sacrificial,"  he  says  : — 

"  As  to  the  range  which  that  reference,  or  parallel,  was  to  take,  it 
may  be  observed,  that  though  our  Lord  might  not  unnaturally,  at 
first  sight,  have  been  understood  to  point  exclusively,  (as  doubtless 
He  referred  very  especially)  to  the  Mosaic  system,  under  which  the 
Apostles  were  brought  up,  His  words  contain,  in  truth,  no  such 
limitation.  No  one  dispensation  or  covenant  is  specified  as  having 
an  exclusive  commission  to  interpret  the  New  Ordinance  :  much  less 
is  any  particular  rite  of  the  Mosaic  Institution  so  distinguished ; 

such  as,  for  example,  the  Passover Doubtless  the  Church 

....  was  to  apply  to  those  words  of  her  Lord  [i.e.  the  words  of 
Institution],  with  the  utmost  universality,  what  St.  Paul  has  said, 
in  a  more  restricted  sense,  of  certain  words  of  Jeremiah  :  '  In  that 
He  saith,  A  New  Covenant,  He  hath  made  the  first,'  even  all  former 
sacrificial  dispensations,  '  old.'  And  He  referred  to  them  all  in 
their  entire  extent,  as  His  interpreters.  The  Eye  of  the  Saviour, 
in  pronouncing  those  memorable  words,  glanced,  we  cannot  doubt, 
over  the  whole  religious  experience  through  which  He  Himself  had 
conducted  mankind." 

Yet  this  very  argument,  of  the  parallel  to  the  Eucharistic 
Sacrifice  having  to  be  sought  in  the  "  entire  extent"  of  "  all 
former  sacrificial  dispensations  "  and  not  in  the  Mosaic  alone, 
supports  the  further  consideration  which  can  hardly  fail  to 
suggest  itself — That  the  parallel  cannot  be  carried  through- 
out, because  "  the  Lamb  slain  from  the  foundation  of  the 
world  "  is  an  Object  of  Divine  Worship,  which  the  Victim  in 
all  other  Sacrifices  could  not  be. — Hence,  then,  the  Body 
and  Blood  of  Christ  being  (as  Mr.  F.  holds)  really  present 
in  the  Memorial  Eucharistic  Sacrifice,  i.e.  Christ  Himself 
being  present  (as  is  contended  in  opposition  to  Mr.  F.  and  as 
may,  further,  be  reasonably  inferred  from  the  fact  that — 
though  the  command  under  the  Old  Covenant  was  (Deut.  xii. 
23)  "  Be  sure  that  thou  eat  not  the  Blood ;  for  the  blood  is 
the  life ;  and  thou  mayest  not  eat  the  life  with  the  flesh" — the 
bidding  of  CHRIST  is  (S.  Matt.  xxvi.  27,  28.)  "  Drink  ye 


,  439 

all  of  it ;  for  this  is  My  Blood  \My  Life]  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment :"  as  Bp.  Ridley  declared  (See  p.  54)  "  I  say  also  with 
St.  Augustine,  that  we  eat  life  and  we  drink  life  ;)  it  would 
seem  to  follow  that  the  worship  may  and  must  be  "  directed 
to  "  as  well  as  "  presented  by  "  Him  "  our  Passover  "  Who 
"is  sacrificed  for  us"  (not  however  to  "the  consecrated 
Elements  "  as  Mr.  F.  again  repeats)  :  and  this  though,  or 
rather  because,  there  be  not  (as  Mr.  F.  says)  "  the  faintest 
trace  or  intimation  of  any  worship  to  be  paid  to  a  sacrifice" 
In  fact  Mr.  Freeman  evidently  expected  some  such  reply  as 
this  and  endeavours  to  anticipate  it ;  for  he  says  (p.  279)  : — 

"  But  it  will  perhaps  be  contended  that  this  is  among  the  number 
of  the  things  in  which  the  Old  system  could  not  justly  mirror  forth 
the  New  ;  arising  as  it  does  out  of  the  Divine  Nature  of  the  Gospel 
Sacrifice  and  Priest.  But  to  this  there  is  the  fatal  objection,  that  St. 
Paul,  when  setting  forth  to  the  Hebrews  the  points  in  which  the 
Gospel  sacrificial  system  transcends  that  of  the  Law,  makes  no  men- 
tion of  this  as  one.  Nor  is  there,  confessedly,  a  single  word  in  the 
New  Testament,  any  more  than  in  the  Old,  of  direction  or  instruc- 
tion to  the  effect  contended  for.  Jt  is  purely  a  matter  of  inference ; 
an  inference  the  unsoundness  of  which,  as  well  as  the  fearful  con- 
clusions which  (by  the  admission  of  the  upholders  of  it  themselves) 
follow  from  it,  has  been  pointed  out  elsewhere,"  vz'z.,  as  his  Foot- 
note mentions,  in  the  "  Note  at  the  End  of  the  Volume  "  upon 
which  I  am  here  commenting  ;  and  in  his  "  Introd.  to  Part  II.,  pp. 
142—145  "  already  noticed  at  pp.  248-9. 

Yet,  on  consideration,  this  alleged  silence  of  St.  Paul  need 
not  be  "  the  fatal  objection"  which  Mr.  Freeman  avers;  and 
therefore,  as  not  dealing  directly  with  the  subject  like  the 
Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  the  silence  of  the  rest  of  Holy 
Scripture  is  of  less  moment.  For,  besides  that  the  argu- 
ment of  St.  Paul  seems  in  its  nature  limited  to  shewing  how 
"  the  Gospel  sacrificial  system  transcends  that  of  the  Law  " 
where  it  corresponds  with  it,  his  reticence  as  to  its  other 
higher  aspects  may,  perhaps,  be  accounted  for  by  the  hin- 
drance which  he  there  mentions  (vv.  11,  12)  before  making 
his  comparison : — "  Of  whom  we  have  many  things  to 
say,  and  hard  to  be  uttered,  seeing  ye  are  dull  of  hearing. 
For  when  for  the  time  ye  ought  to  be  teachers,  ye  have  need 
that  one  teach  you  again  which  be  the  first  principles  of  the 


440 

oracles  of  God ;  and  are  become  such  as  have  need  of  milk, 
and  not  of  strong  meat  "  And  though  it  might  seem  at  first 
that  Mr.  Freeman's  theory  is  upheld  apparently  in  the 
Apostle's  Eucharistic  exhortation  (xiii.  15)  "By  him  there- 
fore let  us  offer  the  sacrifice  of  praise  to  God  continually, 
that  is,  the  fruit  of  our  lips,  giving  thanks  to  His  name ;" 
the  theory  of  "  worship  to  be  paid  to  a  sacrifice  "  may  perhaps 
be  a  very  legitimate  "  inference  "  from  the  opening  language 
of  the  Epistle  (i.  6)  "  When  He  bringeth  in  the  first-begotten 
into  the  world,  He  saith,  And  let  all  the  angels  of  God  wor- 
ship Him  ;"  for  if  the  Incarnate  One  Sacramentally  comes  in 
again  by  His  Own  appointed  Eucharist,  it  cannot  but  be 
that  so  great  a  condescension  to  those  who  are  lower  than 
the  Angels  demands  from  them  at  least  as  deep  an  Adoration ; 
He  the  true  Melchizedeck  "  of  whom  it  is  witnessed  that 
he  liveth  "  (vii.  8)  receiving  "  there,"  where  He  ever  inter- 
cedes for  them,  the  "  tithes  "  of  His  people's  deep  devotion. 
In  such  l(  an  inference"  there  surely  is  not  "the  unsound 
ness"  which  Mr.  Freeman  may  well  indeed  deprecate ;  though, 
happily,  "  the  fearful  conclusions"  he  refers  to,  so  far  from 
being  an  "admission"  on  the  part  of  those  whom  he  so  indis- 
tinctly indicates,  are  really,  as  I  think  I  have- shewn,  the  erro- 
neous inference  which  he  so  unaccountably  imputes  to  them. 
There  is  one  other  statement  which  Mr.  Freeman  makes, 
in  connexion  with  his  observations  just  considered,  which 
needs  to  be  noticed  :  he  says  (p.  279) : — 

"  Neither,  again,  does  the  ancient  system,  rightly  understood,  and 
taken  in  conjunction  with  Christ's  own  ordinance,  lend  any  support 
to  another  mediaeval  habit,  closely  allied  to  the  former  one,  of 
taking  part,  as  it  is  called,  in  the  sacrifice,  without  receiving.  In  the 
old  system,  the  kind  of  offering  which,  and  which  alone,  was  of 
power  to  retain  the  people  in  the  covenanted  estate,  was  the  peace 
or  eucharistic  offering.  This,  offered  and  partaken  of  thrice  a-year 
at  least,  was,  as  has  been  shewn,  the  condition  and  channel  of 
Israelitish  life." 

But  the  latter  portion  of  this  passage  appears  to  me  to 
correct  the  former  and  to  admit  even  more  than  is  contended 
for  by  those  against  whom  Mr.  Freeman  urges  his  objec- 


441 

tions:  if,  indeed,  they  advocated  habitual  non-communi- 
cating attendance,  there  would  be  a  force  in  his  objection 
and  a  fitness  in  his  parallel :  but,  as  their  contention  expresses 
or  implies  frequent  or  at  least  the  prescribed  Communions 
(the  case  excepted  of  those  who  may  be  preparing  for  Com- 
munion) so,  it  seems  to  me,  the  complaint  is  irrelevant; 
though,  at  the  same  time,  it  furnishes  an  argument  where- 
with to  justify  a  practice  which  would  be  strictly  laivful 
according  to  the  rule  of  the  English  Liturgy.  For,  if  a 
person,  acting  upon  the  Rubric,  were  to  "  communicate 
three  times  in  the  year,  of  which  Easter  to  be  one  ;"  and  were 
to  be  present  throughout  "  the  Divine  Service,"  without  Com- 
municating, during  the  rest  of  the  year,  he  could  defend  his 
habit  on  that  very  requirement  of  "  the  old  system  "  which, 
Mr.  Freeman  says,  was  "the  condition  and  channel  of 
Israelitish  life."  I  do  not  say  that  such  a  habit  of  minimum 
reception  would  be  an  expedient  one  ;  nor  am  I  forgetting 
that  more  frequent  Communions  are  by  distinct  implication 
counselled  in  this  Rubric  and  should  therefore  be  continually 
and  carefully  recommended  as  the  means  of  attaining  those 
increased  spiritual  "  benefits  whereof  we  are  partakers 
thereby ;"  yet  that  the  "  taking  part,  as  it  is  called,  in  the 
sacrifice,  without  receiving "  has  its  "own  blessing,  appears 
to  me  to  be  practically  admitted  in  Mr.  Freeman's  argument, 
and  seems  even  more  plainly  implied  by  his  saying  elsewhere 
(p.  243)  "  ....  it  could  not  be  but  that  admission  to  the 
Presence  would,  apart  from  sacramental  reception,  involve  a 
measure  of  such  communion  "  as  he  points  out  was  one  "  of  the 
needs  of  man  "  provided  for  "  under  the  older  dispensation." 
It  is  not  without  much  consideration  and  great  diffidence, 
remembering  the  learning  and  ability  of  Mr.  Freeman,  that 
I  have  hazarded  these  few  remarks  upon  his  Note  :  they 
have  been  made  in  the  hope  of  removing  the  erroneous 
impressions,  touching  the  alleged  opinions  of  others,  which  it 
seems  too  calculated  to  produce ;  and  also,  with  the  object 
of  shewing  that,  when  accurately  represented,  they  are  not 
contrariant  to  the  Doctrine  and  Discipline  of  the  Church, 

L  L  L 


442 

and,  moreover,  may  apparently  be  harmonized  with  that 
ancient  Doctrine  of  Sacrifice  and  Communion  so  elaborately 
discussed  in  a  Work  which  one  regrets,  in  common  with 
others,  may  perchance  be  deteriorated  in  value  by  the 
peculiar  theory  of  Eucharistic  Presence  so  entirely  and  ex- 
clusively asserted  in  that  Note  and  throughout  Mr.  Freeman's 
Volume. 


To  conclude.  The  preceding  pages  have  been  written 
under  a  strong  sense  of  the  great  importance  of  not  only  not 
widening  in  the  least  the  breaches  caused  by  recent  Eucha- 
ristic controversy ;  but,  on  the  contrary,  of  doing  everything 
possible  to  heal  dissensions,  so  far  as  can  be  done  consistently 
with  what  is  due  to  the  full  and  dispassionate  consideration 
of  all  the  reliable  Evidence  which  is  producible,  however 
conflicting  it  may,  or  may  be  thought  to,  be.  Moreover  the 
moral,  and  in  the  case  of  Clergy  the  legal  obligation  of  not 
contradicting  the  Decisions  of  the  Catholic  Church— re- 
presented to  us  in  this  Kingdom  by  the  Church  of  England — 
has  been  carefully  borne  in  mind  ;  they  were  meant  not  to  be, 
and  it  is  hoped  and  believed  they  are  not,  infringed  by  any 
opinions  expressed  or  conclusions  drawn  in  this  Volume. 
The  sole  aim  has  been  to  promote  Peace  and  Concord  touching 
a  subject  which,  from  its  special  relation  to  Him  Who  is 
"  the  Author"  of  the  one  and  "the  Lover  "  of  the  other,  pre- 
eminently demands  their  culture.  If  what  has  now  been 
said  shall  lead  any  to  a  juster  appreciation  of  the  English 
Reformation  period  than  that  in  which,  there  is  reason  to  be- 
lieve, it  is  too  commonly  held ;  and  if,  in  doing  this,  it  shall 
further  tend  in  the  very  smallest  degree  to  reconcile  differ- 
ences, to  remove  doubts,  to  attest  continuity  of  ancient  Doc- 
trine, to  promote  reverence,  to  deepen  Faith,  to  encourage 
Hope,  and  especially  to  enlarge  and  strengthen  Charity — the 
not  unpleasing  task  of  investigating  a  question  of  some 
Historical  and  Theological  interest  will  have  found  a.  more 
than  sufficient  recompence. 


INDEX. 


PAGE. 

ACCESS,  prayer  of,  Bucer's  commendation  of  -  Note        405 

Adoration  of  the  Sacrament,  Trent  Decree  and  Canon  thereon  -       91-2 

Cosin's  opinion  of                                                   -'  138 

JElfric's  Anglo-Saxon  Homily  68,  218-19 

A-Lasco,  John,  his  Letter  to  Bullinger,  1551,  on  Bucer's  latest  opinions 

of  R.  Presence.      -                                                -  Note        406 

Alesius,  Alex.,  errors  of  Dr.  Townsend,  Dr.  Wordsworth  and  others 

respecting  him  99-102 

Dr.  Wordsworth's  account  of  him,  in  Eccl.  Biog.        -  -        101 

Chalmers'  account  of  him,  Biog.  Diet.  -                102 

Altar,  Sacrament  of,  Statute  on,  1547  6 

reverence  due  to                                            -  -  386-90 

Andrews,  St.,  Bp.  of,  his  Opinion  on  Mr.  Cheyne's  Appeal  Note        117 

Aquinas,  S.  Thomas,  his  doctrine  of  Presence  in  the  Sacrament  Note        115 
his  question — Whether  light  is  a  body  or  a  quality  ? — considered        345 

Article  xxviii.  of  1562,  compared  with  Decl.  on  Kneeling      -  -  411-15 

xxix.  of  1552        -  32 

omitted  in  part  in  1571  69 

Clause  on  Reservation  etc.  of  Set.        -  92 

Mr.  Hard  wick's  opinion  of  it        -                -  111 

xxix.  Title  of  when  signed  by  Geste,  May  11,  1571  Note        20 

Articles  of  1552,  Knox  one  of  the  revisers  of  93 
Lat.  copy,  of,  in  St.  Paper  Office,  signed  by  Knox  and  other  five 

Royal  Chaplains  110 

Mr.  Hardwick's  account  of  their  preparation  -        118 

1571,  discussion  of  Bps.  upon  them.  208 

Dr.  Lambe  on  Bodl.  MS.  of                                           -  Note        231 

Mr.  flardwick  on  Parker  MS.  of  233  and  Note 

of  Bp.  Hooper,  1551-2,  remarks  thereon       .  -         119 

Irish,  of  1615         -  285 

Augustine,  St.,  his  opinion  of  what  Judas  received  Note        210 

on  reception  by  the  wicked  216 


444  INDEX. 

PAGE. 

BANOOB  Rubric  on  Consumption  of  Sacrament       ...  135 
Barlow,  his  account  of  irreverent  mode  of  giving  the  Set.  in  1603  -  Note  128 
Baxter,  Richard,   his    account  of  the  Managers  of  the    Savoy  Con- 
ference -                                                                 -         Note  322 
Bennett,  Hist,  of  Articles  quoted      .                -                -                     208,  223-4 
Bertram,  his  Doctrine  on  the  Eucharist,  Cranmer's  opinion  of  it            -  20 
Bingham,  "  How  the  remains  of  the  Eucharist  were  disposed  of    141,  143,  149 
Ancient  division  of  the  Oblations                                    -                .  147 
meaning  of  "  the  faithful"  in  Eccl.  Writers         -                -  294 
Bishops,  Ans.  of,  to  Puritans  in  1661  as  to  Decl.  on  Kneeling                 -  70 
remarks  upon  the  same          -  411-15 
Blunt,  Prof.,  doctrinal  significance  of  Veiling  the  Sacrament  -                -  382 
Bonner,  Bp.,  conversation  with  Cranmer  Sep.  10,  1549                    -  6 
Bradford,  John,  his  Second  Examination  Jan.  1554-5              -                -  41 
Bread  to  be  used  in  Communion,  Rubric  on            -                           Note  35 
Brechin,  Bp.  of,  on  alleged  consequences  of  Doct.  of  Real  Presence  Note  334 
Brett,  Dr.,  his  objection  to  Consecration  Prayer  in  P.  Book  of  1662,  con- 
sidered                                                  -                -        Notes  404-5 
Browne,  Mr.  Harold,  on  omission  of  Clause  =  Declaration  at  Revision  of 

Articles  in  1559  -  -  190 
meaning  of  the  Declaration  Note  355 
Bucer,  varied  from  P.  Martyr  on  Real  Presence  -  -  -  12 
his  illustration  of  Real  Presence,  from  the  Sun,  cited  by  Gardiner  73 
his  objection  to  Oblation  of  the  Elements  -  Note  89 
his  doubt  of  influencing  changes  in  P.  Bk.  -  -  89,  402 
his  Letter  of  Ap.  26,  1549  as  to  P.  Bk.  -  Note  166 
his  opinion  of  P.  Martyr's  belief  on  R.  Presence  -  -  175 
his  Letter  to  Calvin,  1550,  on  R.  Presence  -  -  176 
his  Letter  to  P.  Martyr  1649,  on  R.  Presence  Note  398-402,  406 
his  Letter  to  Theo.  Niger,  1550,  on  R.  Presence  -  Notes  401,  403 
his  objection  to  P.  of  Consecration  in  P.  Book  of  1549,  con- 
sidered -  -  Notes  403-6 
his  latest  opinions  on  R.  Presence,  A-Lasco's  account  of  Note  406 
Burial  Service,  meaning  of  "  the  faithful"  therein  298 
Burnet,  Bp.,  his  character  of  Bp.  Shaxton  -  -  4 
his  account  of  Order  in  Council  Book  for  Declaration  1552  35 
his  account  of  omission  of  Declaration  in  P.  B.  1559  -  63 
his  account  of  restoration  of  Declaration  in  P.  B.  1662  -  71-2,  301 
his  account  of  Bp.  Gawden  Note  72 
his  character  of  Ld.  Chancellor  Goodrick  -  -  98 
his  account  of  review  of  Art.  xxviii.  in  1559  -  189 
his  "  Own  Time,"  Lord  Macaulay's  remarks  upon  the  Harleian 

MS.  of  it        -                                                                  Note  301 

Hearne's  opinion  of  it                                                   -  ib. 

his  defence  of  Kneeling  at  Sacrament                                     Note  336 

Burton,  Dr.,  his  account  of  Picture  in  Cranmer's  Catm.  1548                 -  168-70 


INDEX.  445 

PAGE. 

CALVIN,  his  Eucharistic  belief  as  quoted  by  Bp.  Gosin      •               Note  86-7 

his  Letter  to  Cranmer,  Apr.  1552                                  -  90 
his  Letter  to  Bullinger  on  the  "  Thing  "  of  the  Set,  June  1548 

Note  413-14 

Cambridge,  Three  Disputations  at  on  Eucharist                                -  13-18 

Canon  of  1604,  on  Reverence  to  the  Altar                                -                -  386 

Canons,  Ancient,  as  to  remains  of  Sacrament  -                -                 -  146-51 

Cardwell,  Dr.,  his  error  as  to  Authority  of  Declaration  in  1552              -  120 
his  error  as  to  Editions  of  the  P.  Book  of  1552  in  which  the 

Declaration  appeared      -  121 

his  error  as  to  alarm  in  Council,  in  1552,  on  Real  Presence         -  121-2 

Catechism,  Cranmer's  of  1548                                            -                -  154 

of  Ch.  of  England,  Bp.  Overall's  additions  to            -                -  283 

Cecil,  Sec.,  his  Letter  on  Articles  of  1552        -                -                -  120 
"  Censura,"  Bucer's,  quoted    -                                  -                       Notes  404,  405 

Cheney,  Bp.,  the  question  of  his  Subscription  to  Articles  considered      -  224 

Cheyne,  Mr.,  his  error  as  to  Rubric  of  1552                     -                 Note  89 

Chrysostom,  St.,  on  reception  by  wicked                 -                -         Note  228 

Collier,  his  account  of  omission  of  Declaration  in  P.  B.  1559  64 
Communion  in  both  kinds,  Proclamation  of  1548  ordering  it,  approved 

by  Bp.  Gardiner    -                                                  -                -  26 

Confirmation,  Purit.  obj.  at  Hamp.  Ct.  Conference           -                 Note  221 

Consecration  of  Eucharist,  Cranmer's  belief  thereon                -           85-9  &  Note 

Cosin' s  belief  thereon              -                -  137 

Prayer  of,  in  Book  of  1549,  how  far  altered  in  deference  to 

Bucer    -                                                                  -        Notes  401-6 

Cosin,  Bp  ,  his  opinion  of  Calvin's  Eucharistic  doctrine                    Note  86-7 
Notes  on  the  C.  Prayer         -   Note  122-4,  126-7,  131-2,  137-8,  141,  146 

Effect  of  Consecration           •                                                  -  137 

His  opinion  of  Adoration              -                -                -  138 

his  suggestions  for  alteration  of  P.  Book               -                -  148 
his  Hist,  of  Transubstantiation  quoted         -                              150,  331-6 

Notes  on  C.  Prayer,  remarks  upon        -                -                 Note  290 

Baxter's  account  of  him  in  Savoy  Conf.        -                          Note  322 

his  language  on  real  Presence  in  Hist,  of  Transub.  331-6 

Cranmer,  Abp.,  conversation  with  Bonner  Sep.  10,  1549        -  6 

his  uses  of  the  word  "  Sacrament "                        -                -  20 

his  opinion  of  Bertram's  doctrine  on  the  Eucharist       -  20 

his  Answer  to  Gardiner,  quoted              -  20-26 
his  Eucharistic  Doctrine  in  Justus  Jonas's  Catechism,  approved 

by  Gardiner           .                                                 -  27 

his  Disputation  at  Oxford,  1555  45 
his  argument  with  Gardiner  as  to  presence  of  the  Sun                  73,  342-3 

his  Letter  to  P.  Council  on  Rubric  of  Kneeling  at  Set.  Oct.  7, 1552  77 

Foxe's  account  of  his  belief  on  the  Eucharist  84 

his  belief  as  to  Consecration          •*  .85-9 


446  INDEX. 

PAGE. 

Cranmer,  his  Eucharistic  belief  compared  with  that  of  Calvin  Note  86-7 
his  Letter  to  Calvin  on  Co.  of  Trent,  March  20,  1552  -  90 
probably  considered  reverence  synonymous  with  Standing  by  Cele- 
brant, Kneeling  with  all  others  -  -  125-8 
his  Catechism  of  1548  -  -  154 
Ans.  to  Smith  on  the  same  -  -  Note  155 
Rowland  Taylor's  opinion  of  it  -  Note  157 
his  own  explanation  of  it  -  159 
Bp  Gardiner's  inference  from  it  -  165-67 
abandoned  Transubstantiation  before  1545  -  160,  263,  275 
his  prob.  opinion  of  Lights  and  Vestments  Note  166 
his  account  of  Picture  in  Catm.  1548  -  ib. 
Dr.  Burton's  do.  -  -  168 
his  Ans.  to  Smith  as  to  doct.  of  Set.  taught  by  P.  Martyr  and 

Catm.  1548     -                                -                                 Note  167 

his  account  of  Presence  not  held  by  Luther  and  others          Note  168 

Mr.  Fisher's  account  of  his  opinion  on  Real  Presence           -  170-1 
his  Eucharistic  opinions  in  1549-50  argued  from  Bp.  Hooper's 

language                                                                                    -  174-5 
his  opinions  whether  influenced  or  not  by  Bucer  -            175,  Note  402-3 

his  definition  of  Corporal               -                                  -  177-8 

his  statements  about  R.  Presence  and  Transubstantiation     -  179-86 

bad  abandoned,  in  1548,  his  belief  in  corporal  presence                -  276 

his  comparison  of  corporal  presence  of  Christ  and  the  Sun    -  342 


DAVID'S,  St.,  Bp.  of,  quoted  by  Mr.  Goode  against  Dr.  Pusey  -     257-9 

his  opinion  of  Denison  Prosecution        -  259 

Declaration  on  Kneeling. of  1552  and  1562  compared  -  2 

order  for,  in  Council  Book  Oct.  27,  1552  -     35  &  Note 

omitted  in  P.  Book  1559  -      63-4 

restored,  under  what  circumstances        -  70-73,  302,  307-9 

framed  upon  basis  of  Art.  xxix.  1552  -  114-18 

Error  of  Bps.  of  S.  Andrew's,  Glasgow,  and  Moray  as  to  mean- 
ing of  it  Note  117 
not  added  to  P.  Book  of  1552  by  mere  authority  of  Edw.  vith.  -  120 
in  what  Editions  of  P.  Bk.  of  1552  it  appeared  -  121 
its  use  of  the  word  "  sacramental "  noticed  -  -  256 
Abp.  Seeker's  opinion  of  it  -  Note  288 
Mr.  Fisher's  remarks  on  change  of  it  in  1662  Note  337 
Mr.  Goode's  explanation  of  it  considered  339-41 
Mr.  Goode's  reason  for  its  exclusion  from  P.  Book  between  1552 

and  1662,  examined  -  355-58 

Abraham  Woodhead's  opinion  of  it       -  361,  368,  370 

Mr.  Goode's  assertion— that  it  is  directed  against  Adoration  to 

Christ  present  as  God  and  man — examined  -  -     383-6 


INDEX.  447 

PAGE. 

Denison,  Archn.,  his  use  of  "  profitably"  compared  by  Mr.  Goode,  with 

a  proposal  made  by  Bp.  Guest        -  -                 214 

Disputation  on  Eucharist,  at  Oxford,  June  11,  1549  9-13 

at  Cambridge,  June  20  and  24,  1549     -  13-18 

at  Oxford,  April  18,  1554  -     39-41 

at  Oxford,  April  16,  1555      -  45-52 

at  Oxford,  1555  -     52-61 

EPISTLES,  Apostolical,  meaning  of  "  faithful "  therein    -  291 

Eucharist,  how  celebrated  in  England  in  Dec.  1549  -        173 

FAGIUS,  Paul,  his  Letter  to  Ministers  at  Strasburgh  on  P.  Book  1549     Note  166 
"  Faithful,  the,"  its  meaning  considered  -  286-301 

Ferrar,  Bp.,  Articles  against,  1553-4  37 

Fisher,  Mr.,  his  opinion  of  Cranmer's  belief  on  Real  Presence  -     170-1 

his  opinion  of  intended  prosecution  of  Arch.  Wilberforce  Note  259-60 
his  opinion  of  the  authority  of  Cranmer's  Catm.  in  1551  Note  262 
his  opinion  of  Bp.  Overall's  additions  to  Catechism  -  284 

his  remark  on  "  Real"  Note         331 

his  observations  on  change  in  Decl.  on  Kneeling  Note         337 

his  remarks  on  Rubric  as  to  remains  of  the  Sacrament  -         380 

comparison  of  quotations  from  his  1st  and  2nd  Ed.  Note         381 

his  opinion  of  Bucer's  and  Martyr's  influence  with  Cranmer  Note  403 
his  opinion  of  doctrine  of  "res  sacramentaria"  -  Note  409 

Forbes,  Bp.,  on  Real  Presence  -        374 

"  Forms  of  Bread  and  Wine,"  not  used  in  Communion  Service,  Cranmer  21,  261 
how  explained  by  Cranmer  -  -  -         179 

how  explained  by  Jewel        -  267-270 

Foxe,  his  opinion  of  P.  Martyr's  Disputat.  at  Oxford,  June  11,  1549      -  9 

his  account,  from  John  Young,  of  Dr.  Redman's  opinion  of  Re- 
ception by  the  wicked  -  -  -  -  29 
his  estimate  of  Cranmer's  Eucharistic  belief                 -  84 
Freeman,  Mr.,  his  opinion  of  Real  Presence  compared  with  Bp.  Jewel's 

objection  to  Harding's  expression  Note         248 

his  opinions  on  the  subject  further  examined  -  -  421-42 

GARDINER,  Bp.,  acknowledged  Real  Presence  taught  in  P.  B.  1549  and 

by  Bp.  Ridley,  Dr.  Redman,  and  Abp.  Cranmer  in  1550-1  -  9,  26,  27 
The  Lord  Paget's  account  of  his  Doctrine  in  1550-1  28 

his  argument  from  Bucer  as  to  presence  of  the  Sun     -  73,  343-4 

his  inference  from  Catm.  1548  -  165 

Gauden,  Bp.,  pressed  restoration  of  Decl.  ...  71,302 

character  of  him  302  and  Note,  Note        322 

his  "  Tears,  sighs,"  etc.  -         31)2 

his  "  Counsell ...  to  xliv.  Presbyters,"  etc.        -  305 

his  "  Whole  Duty  of  a  Communicant,"  etc.  -  -    310-20 


44-8  INDEX. 

PAGE. 

Gest,  Disputant  at  Cambridge,  1549  .'  .& ••>;•  17 

his  opinion  on  Kneeling  at  Sacrament      '!'.  '-^  ;*         '•••  -  64 

his  Letter  to  Cecil,  Dec.  22,  1566          -  J-;*r       ;!  *  192 

his  Second  Letter,  May  1571        -  -"  t...it'->l  195-204 

the  question  of  his  Subscripn.  to  Articles  considered  231  and  Note 

Glyn,  Dr.,  Disputant  at  Cambridge  1589  *    -        '••'<*    13-17 

Goode,  Mr.,  (Dean  of  Ripon),  on  Oral  Manducation        -  144 

on  Cranmer's  doctrine  in  1548      -  155 

his  error  on  Roman  belief  of  natural  presence        -  -  161 

his  statement  replied  to— that  "  the  interpretation.. given  to  the 
28th  Art."  by  Bp.  Geste's  Letter  of  Dec,  22,  1566,  is  "  shown 
to  be  inadmissible  by  "  his  2nd  Letter  of  May  1571  -  204-15 

his  argument  considered— that  Abp.  Parker's  Letter,  June  4,  1571 

proves  his  disagreement  with  Gueston  the  Eucharist  215-17  Note  233 
his  argument  from  Preface  to  Anglo-Sax.  Horn,  answered  21-7-220 

his  comparison  of  the  words  of  Bp.  Guest  and  Bp.  Jewel  considered  240-2 
his  complaint  of  Dr.  Pusey's  quotation  from  S.  Isidore,  examined  251-5 
his  objection  to  the  term  "  sacramentaily  "  answered  -  -  255-7 

his  quotation  from  Bp.  of  St.  David's  in  re  Dr.  Pusey's  Notes  on 

the  Eucharist,  noticed   -  257-60 

his  argument  from  Cranmer's  reply  to  Gardiner  in  re  "  under 
the  form  of  bread  and  wine  "  and  the  P.  B.  of  1549,  con- 
sidered -  -     261-2 
his  assertion  that  Cranmer  "altogether  repudiated  the  phrase  " 

for  the  Church  of  England,  replied  to  -  263-4 

his  argument  as  to  meaning  of  "  the  faithful,"  examined  -  285-301 

his  remarks  on  Bp.  Cosin's  reference  to  Bp.  Overall  in  Notes  on 

C.  Prayer,  considered    -  Note        290 

his  argument  on  the  meaning  of  the  Decl.  on  Kneelg.  considered  338-41 
his  reason  for  the  exclusion  of  the  Declaration  between  1552  and 

1662,  examined  -         355-358 

his  remarks  on  oral  manducation,  considered  -          Note     356-7 

his  admission  of  possible  "real"  =  material   "Presence  in  the 

Supper"        -  Note        358 

his  citations  from  Abraham  Woodhead  to  prove  that  the  Presence 

is  "  to  the  receiver,  but  not  to  the  Elements,"  discussed  359-79 

his  remarks  on  spiritual  presence  being  =  presence  of  a  Spirit, 

noticed  -  -  Note        377 

his  opinion  of  Dr.  Pusey's  reference  to  Rubric  on  receiving  of 

Sacrament,  considered  -  -  380 

his  remarks  on  spiritual  partaking  of  a  material  thing,  argued  from     383-6 
his  reference  to  Can.  7  A.D.  1640,  and  to  Abp.  Laud  in  explana- 
tion of  the  Declaration  on  Kneeling,  mistaken     -  -    386-93 
his  argument  as  to  worship  due  to  the  Sacrament,  examined  395 
his  opinion  as  to  the  proper  name  for  the  Sacrament  if  "  a  com- 
pound of  different  things,  replied  to                     -                        397 


INDEX.  449 

PAGE. 

Goode,  Mr.,  (Dean  of  Bipon),  his  definition  of  "  represented  "  considered  398 
his  remarks  on  Dr.  Pusey's  use  of  "  enjoy,  "  corrected  by  Bucer's 

use  of  it                                                                   -         Note  402 
his  statement  of  the  effect  of  Bucer's  objn.  to  Cons.  Prayer  in 

Bk.  of  1549,  considered                                                    Note  404-6 

his  remark  on  the  meaning  of  "  This  is  My  Body,"  considered  404-7 
his  opinion  of  altered  Eucharistic  phraseology  in  P.  Bk.  1552, 

considered                                                                                -  408-11 

Goodrich,  Bp.,  Lord  Chancellor  in  1552,  his  opinions  and  character       -  97-8 

Gorham,  Mr,  "Reformation  Gleanings,"  quoted  Notes  398-403,  410,  413 

Griffiths,  Mr.,  his  remarks  on  Advt.  to  1st  Book  of  Homilies            Note  265 

Grindal,  Disputant  at  Cambridge,  1549  17 

Dialogue  between  Custom  and  Verity                   -  66 

Letter  (from  him  and  Horn)  to  Bullinger,  Feb.  6,  1566-7  on 

Kneeling                                                                                  -  191 
"  Guilty  of  the  Body  and  Blood  of  the  Lord,"  explanation  of  it  in  Primer 

of  1541                                                                               Note  289 

Gunning,  Bp.,  alteration  of  Declaration  in  1662  71 

Baxter's  account  of  him  in  Savoy  Conf.                                 Note  322-3 

HALLAM,  Mr.,  on  intended  confirmation  of  Eng.  Liturgy  by  Pius  ix.     -  191 

Hammond,  Dr.,  on  Real  Presence   -                                                   Note  373 

Hampton  Court  Conference,  discussion  there  about  Catechism                -  283 

Hardwick,  Mr.,  his  opinion  of  Art.  xxix.  of  1552  111 

his  account  of  preparation  of  Articles  of  1552                                -  118 

his  account  of  Parker  M.S.  of  Articles  of  1571      -  233  and  Note 

Heat,  theories  of  the  nature  of                                                                  -  346 

Heylin,  Dr.,  his  account  of  Bps'  discussion  of  Articles,  May  1571  203 

his  account  of  changes  in  Commn.  Service  -                -  330 

on  adoration  towards  the  East                                                Note  387 

Hierurgia  Anglicana,  quoted  -                                                                  -  387-90 

Homilies  of  1547,  Advertisement  to  -  160,  260,  283 

2nd  Bk.  of,  Horn.  XT.                                                                   -  163 

Homily  on  the  Sacrament,  Pt.  2 ;  reception  by  the  wicked  216 

"  of  Com.  Prayer  and  Sacraments "                                              -  222 

on  the  Sacrament  Pt.  2         -                                                  Note  230 

Hooker,  on  the  Presence  due  to  Christ's  nature       -                -         Note  373 

Hooper,  Bp.,  his  Article  on  Transubstantiation  and  Corporal  Presence 

1551-2  30 

Articles  ministered  to  W.  Phelps,  1551        -  30 

his  Articles  of  1551-2,  remarks  thereon  119 

his  Letter  to  Bucer,  June  19,  1548,  on  Eucharist        -  -     171-2 

his  Letter  to  Bullinger,  Ap.  26,  1549,  on  Lutheranism         -  172 

ditto               Feb.  5,  1549-50,  on  Eucharist                 -  174 

Hours,  the,  publicly  used  in  England  in  Dec.  1549         -  173 

Humphrey  and  Sampson,  Letter  to  Bullinger,  July  1566       -         Note  234 

M  M  M 


450  INDEX. 

PAGE. 

ISIDORE,  St.,  as  quoted  by  Mr.  Goode  and  Dr.  Pusey       -  -  251-6 


JEBB'S  Choral  Service,  presentation  of  Offerings     -                           Note  132 

Jewel,  Bp.,  his  controversy  with  Harding  on  the  Eucharist  235-250,  267-9 

his  "defence  of  the  apology"  quoted                            -         Note  264 

did  not  object  to  "  under  the  form  of  bread  and  wine"          264-270,  280 

Jenkyns,  Dr.,  his  opinion  of  John  ab  Ulmis                                       Note  186 

KEBLE,  Mr.,  his  opinion  of  Hooker's  limitations  as  to  Real  Presence     Note       373 

Kennett,  Bp.,  his  description  of  Documents  used  in  Review  of  1661       -  132 

his  notice  of  alterations  in  P.  Book,  1661                                Note  309 

Kneeling,  synonymous  with  Reverence,  argument  upon  it       -  122-152 

at  Sacrament,  Guest's  opinion  of  it      -  64 

objected  to  by  Non-Conformists  in  1661  70 

Cranmer's  Letter  to  P.  Council  on  Rubric  of,  Oct.  7,  1552  -  77 

John  Knox  the  probable  chief  objector  to  Rubric  on     -                -  93,  97 

probable  nature  of  his  objections  104-8 
need  of  resisting  Knox's  objection  to,  and  Cranmer's  mode  of  deal- 
ing with  it                                                                                   112-118 

Cosin's  explanation  of  it        -                -  138 

Bishops'  defence  of  it,  in  Savoy  Conf.                                             -  307 

Bp.  Morton's  defence  of  it    -                -  328 

Knox,  John,  one  of  the  Six  Royal  Chaplains  appointed  to  revise  Arti- 
cles of  1552                                                                          93  Note  109 
D.  of  Northumberland  suggests  him  to  Cecil  for  Bp.  Oct.  28,  1552  94 
his  subsequent  dispute  with  the  Duke                                   Note  94 
his  Letter  to  Cecil        -  95 
his  character  of  some  of  Edw,  vith.  Councillors    -  94 
reference  to  him  in  Co.  Book  indicates  that  he  provoked  Cran- 
mer's Letter  to  P.  Council,  Oct.  7, 1552  96 
his  proposed  preferment  to  All-hallows,  Bread-st.  and  refusal  of 

it,  1552-3       -  96-7 

his  Exam,  by  P.  Council  as  to  Kneeling  at  the  Lord's  Table       -  97 
his  objection  to  Kneeling  at  Set.  prob.  referred  to  by  Weston  in 

1554  98-101 

the  ground  of  his  objections  shewn  from  his  own  writings           -  104-8 

LAMBE,  Dr.,  his  Note  on  Bodl.  M.S.  of  Articles  231 
Langdale,  Disputant  at  Cambridge  1549                                                    -  15-17 
Lathbury,  Mr.,  his  opinion  of  Bodleian  Editions  of  Primer  of  1575,  ex- 
amined                                                                            Note  272 
Latimer,  Bp.,  his  opinion  in  1554  of  P.  Book  1552  34 
his  disputation  at  Oxford  1554  39 
his  Conference  with  Ridley  1655  42 
"  Remains"  of,  Parker  Society's  Ed.,  error  as  to  Alesius  99 


INDEX. 


451 


Latimer,  Bp.,  his  denial  of  Lutheranism  on  the  Set. 
Laud,  Abp.,  on  reverence  to  the  Altar 

on  Eeal  Presence          - 
Light,  theories  of  the  nature  of        - 
Lights,  Altar,  not  intended  to  be  disused  under  P.  Book  1549 

used  in  Dec.  1549 
Liturgies,  Ancient,  meaning  of  "  the  faithful "  therein 

illustrate  meaning  of  "  So  "  in  Prayer  of  Access. 


PAGE. 

156  and  Note 
388-90 

-  390-93 

345 

Note        166 
173 

-  291-3 
Note        297 


MACAULAY,  Lord,  his  account  of  the  Harl.  MS.  of  Bp.  Burnet's  "  Own 

Time"                                                                   -         Note  301 

Madew,  Dr.,  Disputant  at  Cambridge,  1549  13-16 

Marback,  J.,  his  opinion  of  R.  Presence  as  stated  by  P.  Martyr        Note  406 

Martyr,  P.,  Disputation  at  Oxford,  June  11,  1549,  analysis  of                -  10-13 

his  Doctrine  of  Real  Presence  differed  from  Bucer's  12 

his  "  Confession  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  exhibited  to  the  Senate  of 

Strasburgh,"  1566                                  -                -          Note  402-3 

prob.  did  not  object  to  Doctrine  of  P.  Book  of  1549  Note  403 
his  Letter  to  Calvin,  1555,  on  Marback's  opinion  of  JR.  Presence  Note  406 
his  letter  to  Bullinger,  June  14,  1552,  on  the  hindrances  to  the 

Reformation                                                                       Note  409-20 

his  Letter  to  Bucer  on  Reformation  of  the  Rituals                 Note  402 

Morley,  Bp.,  favoured  restoration  of  Declaration  on  Kneeling                 -  302 

his  character          -                                                 -  323 

his  opinions  on  Real  Presence      -  323-9 

Morton,  Bp.,  "  of  the  Institution  of  the  Sacrament,"  etc.  327 

his  "  Catholic  Appeal "                                                                   -  328 

his  "  Defence  of ...  Kneeling"          • .  ib. 

NICHOL,  his  Note  on  Cosin's  suggested  alteration  of  Rubric  "  if  any  of 

the  Bread,"  etc.                                                                       -  148 

Non-communicating  presence  at  H.  Com.  allowed  by  Bp.  Ferrar,  1553-4  37 

Northumberland,  Duke  of,  his  Letters  to  Cecil  about  J.  Knox                -  94-5 


OBLATION  of  Elements,  not  rejected  in  P.  Book  of  1552  - 

posture  of  Celebrant  at  - 

Oblations,  Bingham's  account  of  Ancient  division  of 
Offerings,  posture  of  presenting  them  by  Celebrant  and  people 
Oral  Manducation,  remarks  on          - 
Overall,  Bp.,  his  additions  to  the  Catechism 

his  opinion  on  Real  Presence 


Note 


85 

133 

147 

131-4 

144-6 

283 

290 


PAGET,  the  Lord,  his  account  of  Gardiner's  Doctrine  in  1550-1  28 

Parker,  Abp.,  his  Letter  on  the  form  of  Bread  for  H.  C.  Feb.  6, 1570-71    Note  234 


452 


INDEX. 


PAGE. 

Pearson,  Dr.,  Baxter's  account  of  him  in  Savoy  Conf.     -  Note        322 

Phelps,  W.,  Articles  consented  to  by  him  1551       -  -fc--t  -          30 

Philpot,  Archn.,  Dispn.  at  Lon.  1553  -  38 

Pole,  Cardinal,  Letter  to  him  from  Duke  of  Somerset,  June  4, 1549  7 

Prayer  Book  of  1549,  Bp.  Gardiner's  opinion  of  it  26 

intention  of  its  changes,  stated  by  Bucer  and  Fagius  -         Note        166 

Heylin's  account  of  changes  in  330 

1552,  taught  same  Eucharistic  Doctrine  as  that  of  1549  '^'i*     33-4 

1559,  how  prob.  regarded  by  Pius  iv.  191 

1636-7  (Scotch)  Rubric  « if  any  of  the  Bread  and  Wine  remain,"  &c.     124 

1549-62,  meaning  of  "  the  faithful "  therein  "'„>',  295-301 

Prayer  of  Access.  1549-1662  Note        164 

illustrated  from  Ancient  Liturgies         -  Note        297 

Presence,  Divine,  under  the  Law  and  the  Gospel,  illustrated  from  the  Sun  347-355 

Primer,  reformed,  Variations  in  a  prayer  of,  containing  the  words  "  under 

the  form  of  bread  and  wine,"  1545  to  1575,  examined  270-283 

Propositions,  nine,  drawn  from  contents  of  the  Volume  -   416-20 

Prostration  at  Sacrament,  not  allowed  to  the  Puritans     -  65,  393 

Pusey,  Dr.,  his  quotation  from  S.  Isidore,  as  noticed  by  Mr.  Goode,  ex- 
amined 251-5 
v.  Bp.  of  S.  David's,  referred  to  by  Mr.  Goode                              -   257-60 
his  argument  from  Advt.  to  Homilies  as  noticed  by  Mr.  Goode     260-283 
his  argument  from  Rubrical  directions  on  remains  of  the  Sacra- 
ment, as  noticed  by  Mr.  Goode,  defended                               -     380-3 
his  remarks  on  reservation  etc.,  of  Sacrament  (Art.  28),  as  com- 
plained of  by  Mr.  Goode,  considered  395 
his  use  of  "  enjoy  "  defended  by  Bucer's  use  of  it  from  Mr.  Goode's 

objection  Note  402-3 

REDMAN,  Dr.,  his  Doctrine  of  Real  Presence,  in  1548,  approved  by 

Gardiner  ...  27 

his  statements  on  Real  Presence  in  Nov.  1551       -  28-30 

Letter  concerning  him  from  Young  to  Cheke,  1551       -  29 

Remains  of  Sacrament,  in  what  posture  intended  to  be  consumed    -         122-152 
how  anciently  disposed  of,  stated  by  Bingham  142,  143 

Ancient  Canons  relating  to  -        146,  151 

English  Rubric  on,  perhaps  not  meant  to  prohibit  entirely  reser- 
vation for  the  Sick        -  382 

"  Re-presents,"  meaning  of  considered        -  398 

Reservation  of  Sacrament,  probably  practised  under  P.  Bk.  of  1552    Note        89 
Cosin's  opinion  of  -   139-40 

Reverence  at  Sacrament,  prob.  regarded  by  Cranmer  as  =  Standing  by 

Celebrant,  Kneeling  by  all  others  125-8 

Revisers  of  1662  could  not  have  meant  less  128-152 

Reverence  towards  the  Altar,  etc.,  directions  for  386-9 

"Reverently,"  its  meaning  in  the  different  Rubrics  131- 136 


INDEX.  453 


PAGE. 


Review  of  1661,  Instructions  to  Commissioners  as  to  old  Liturgies  130 

Ee-union,  project  for  in  France,  1685     -                                           Note  332-8 

Eidley,  Bp.,  Disputant,  at  Cambridge,  1549     -  14-18 

Determination  of  the  Disputation                 -  18 

his  Doctrine  of  Real  Presence  in  1550-1  approved  by  Gardiner  27 

his  Conference  in  the  Tower  with  Secy.  Bourn,  1553  39 

his  Conference  with  Latimer,  1555       -  42 

his  "  Brief  declaration  of  the  Lord's  Supper,"  1555      -  43 

his  Disputation  at  Oxford,  1555                             -  52 

Rituals,  reformation  of  in  1551,  P.  Martyr's  account  of         -          Note  402-3 

Rogers,  John,  his  2nd  Exam.  1554-5  42 

Rubric  of  1552,   "if  any  of  the  bread  and  wine  remain,"  etc.,  true 

meaning  of  it  Note  89,  122-4,  p.  137,  141,  416 

Cosin's  suggested  alteration          -                 -                 -  148 
of  Celebrant's  posture  in  Consecrating  and  Receiving,  Cosin's 

opinion  of      -                                                                   Note  126-7 

of  1604  "  And  upon  the  offering  days,"  etc.,  Cosin's  Note    -  131-2 

of  1662  on  publication  of  Banns,  altered  without  authority         -  274 

on  covering  remains  of  the  Sacrament,  Prof.  Blunt's  opinion  of  it  382 

Rubrics,  Sarum  and  Bangor,  on  Consumption  of  Sacrament                    -  135 

"  SACRAMENT,"  Cranmer's  Eucharistical  uses  of  the  term  20 

irreverence  in  distributing  it  in  1603             -                 -          Note  128 

"  Sacramentally,"  its  use  objected  to  by  Mr.  Goode         -                -  255-7 

Sarum  Rubric  on  Consumption  of  Sacrament                                             -  135 

Seeker,  Abp.,  on  Presence  in  Sacrament           -                                 -  288 

his  opinion  of  the  Declaration      -                                 -          Note  288 

Segewick,  Master,  Disputant,  at  Cambridge  1549                             -  16 

Shaxton,  Bp.,  character  of  him  by  Bp.  Burnet        -  4 

his  Recantation  Articles,  1546                                                •  5 

Sheldon,  Bp.,  opposed  restoration  of  Declaration  on  Kneeling                 -  302 

Sherlock,  Dr.,  on  Real  Presence      -  288 

Somerset,  Duke  of;  his  Letter  to  Cardinal  Pole,  June  4,  1549  7 

Sparrow,  Bp.,  his  explanation  of  Rubric  "  if  any  of  the  Bread  and  Wine 

remain,"  etc.                                                                      Note  124 

Statute  1  Edw.  vi.  c.  i.  1547  6 
3  and  4  Edw.  vi.  c.  10.  1549-50                             -               Note  272,  276 

5  and  6  Edw.  vi.  c,  i.  1552  7 

26  Geo.  2,  c.  33.  1753  274 

Strype,  order  for  Declaration  of  1552      -                                               Note  35 

his  account  of  revision  of  Articles  of  1552  by  Royal  Chaplains    -  93 

his  error  as  to  Alesius  and  Knox            -                 -                 -  101 

his  remark  on  Latimer's  belief  on  Corporal  Presence    -          Note  156 

his  remarks  on  Gardiners'  ref.  to  Catm.  1548        -  165 

his  notice  of  review  of  "  Books  of  Service"  in  1545     -                -  275 

his  notice  of  Puritan  demand  for  prostration  at  Sacrament  -  393 


454  INDEX. 

PAGE. 

Sun,  the,  illustrations  of  Heal  Presence  from  it,  considered    -  341-355 

Swainson,  Mr.,  on  "Bill  concerning  coming  to  Church,"  etc.,  1571         -        225 


TAYLOK,  Bp.  Jer.,  on  Real  Presence        -          Note  363,  366,  pp.  373,  375,  377 

Taylor,  Dr.  Rowland,  his  opinion  of  Cranmer's  Catm.  1548  Note         157 

Theodoret,  on  reception  hy  the  Wicked  -  -                         216 

Townsend,  Dr.,  his  error  as  to  Alexander  Alesius  99 

Traheron,  Letter  of,  to  Bullinger,  Sept.  28, 1548     -  -         Note         155 

Dec.  31,  1545        -  Note  155, 157 

Transubstantiation,  abandoned  hy  Cranmer  before  1545  -         160,  263,  275 

ULMIS,  John  ab,  Letter  to  Bullinger,  Nov.  27,  1548  -  Note  155,  156,  and  7 

March  2,  1549  -        Note  155,  158 

Dr.  Jenkyn's  opinion  of  him  -  -  Note         156 

"  Under  the  form  of  Bread  and  Wine,"  the  expression  where  used    160, 161, 187 
used  in  Formularies  and  elsewhere  with  the  sanction  of  Cranmer, 

Parker,  Jewel,  and  others     -  -  262-283 

meaning  of  in  1547-1559       -  -         275-280 

how  explained  in  Six  Articles  of  1539          -  -  -        278 

why  prob.  omitted  in  Primer  of  1566  or  1575       -  280-3 

still  an  authorized  formula  -        283 

Utenhovius,  John,  his  Letter  to  Bullinger  on  (prob.)  Knox,  Dec.  12, 

1552  93 

VESTMENTS,  intention  as  to  them  under  P.  Book  1549  -          Note         166 

used  in  Dec.  1549  173 

"Violent  Hands,"  meaning  of  in  Rub.  of  Burial  Service        -          Note        299 

WAFER  BREAD,  ordered  in  1559       -  65 

"Walker,  Obadiah,  his  License  to  print  Woodhead's  Books  -  Note  361 
"White,  John,  his  statement  of  Doctrine  of  Real  Presence,  taught  in  1549  27 
"Wicked,  the,  on  reception  by  -  Note  210,  216,  228 

Woodhead,  Abraham,  Notice  of       -  Note        359 

his  *'  Two  Discourses  concerning  the  Adoration  of  our  B.  Saviour 

in  the  Holy  Eucharist,"  quoted  -         361-370 

his  "  Compendious  Discourse  on  the  Eucharist,"  quoted  372-379 

Wordsworth,  Dr.,  his  error  as  to  Alesius  in  Eccl.  Biog.  -  -         100 

"Wynter,  John,  his  Assertion  of  the  Sacrament,  1551       -  -  31 

YOUNG,  John,  his  Letter  to  Cheke  concerning  Dr.  Redman,  1551          -          29 


LONDON:  w.  J.  PERRY,  PRINTER. 


By  the  same  Author. 

REVIEW  OF  LENT  TEACHING. — A  Sermon  preached  in  the  Parish  Church 
of  St.  Peter  the  Great,  or  Subdeanry  Chichester,  on  the  Sunday 

next  before  Easter,  1849.     6d. 

* 

THREE  PRESENT  SPECIAL  DANGERS  TO  CHRISTIAN  SANCTIFICATION. — A 
Sermon  preached  in  the  Parish  Church  of  St.  Peter  the  Great, 
or  Subdeanry,  Chichester,  on  Sunday,  February  24,  1850.  6d. 

PRAISE,  A  DUTY  IN  THE  CHURCH'S  ADVERSITY. — A  Sermon  preached  in 
the  Temporary  Church  of  All  Saints,  St.  Marylebone,  on  the 
Feast  of  All  Saints,  1851.  6d. 

LAWFUL  CHURCH  ORNAMENTS  : — being  an  Historical  Examination  of  the 
Judgment  of  the  Bight  Hon.  Stephen  Lushington,  D.C.L.,  in  the 
case  of  Westerton  v  Liddell,  &c.  And  of  "  Aids  for  determining 
some  disputed  points  in  the  Ceremonial  of  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land," by  the  Rev.  William  Goode,  M.A.  With  an  Appendix  on 
the  Judgment  of  the  Rt.  Hon.  Sir  John  Dodson,  D.C.L.,  in  the 
Appeal  Liddell  v  Westerton,  &c.,  1857.  £1  Is.  Od. 

THE  ANGLICAN  AUTHORITY  FOR  THE  PRESENCE  OF  NON-COMMUNICANTS 
DURING  HOLY  COMMUNION. — Reprinted  from  "The  Ecclesiologist " 
of  August  and  October,  1858.  6d. 

SOME  ANALOGIES  BETWEEN  THE  HUMAN  AND  THE  MYSTICAL  BODY,  APPLIED 
TO  DIFFICULTIES  AND  DUTIES  IN  THE  CHURCH. — Part  I.,  Difficulties 
in  the  Church,  1863.     2s. 
Part  II.,  DUTIES  IN  THE  CHURCH. — In  preparation. 

Edited  by  the  Same. 

DIRECTORIUM  SCOTICANUM  ET  ANGLicANUM. — Directions  for  Celebrating 
the  Holy  Communion  according  to  the  Bite  of  the  Church  in 
Scotland  and  of  the  Church  of  England.  By  the  late  Rev.  W. 
Wright,  L.L.D.,  1855.  3s.  6d. 

A  MANUAL  OF  DAILY  PRAYERS — for  persons  who  are  much  hindered  by 
the  duties  of  their  calling.  With  a  Preparation  and  Devotions 
for  Holy  Communion.  Sixth  thousand,  with  additions.  1 859.  4d. 

MEDITATIONS  FOR  A  WEEK,  ON  THE  LORD'S  PRAYER.     6d.  or  25  for  8s.  6d.